Musing

Red Chipper Posts: 119 ✭✭
Stacks are \$200. You open raise UTG for \$10, and get called by cutoff. You check flop, he bets \$20, you check raise to \$60. I know it would be at least flop dependent, but if you HAD to guess on average what percentage of the time he folds, without knowing the hands or the flops, what would it be?

• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
UTG (\$200) opens \$10
CO (\$200) calls.
Flop (\$23) XXX
UTG checks
CO bets \$20
UTG check raises to \$60

There is no way to answer your question without knowing the player or the flop. From a pot odds perspective. Villain has to call \$40 to win \$103 so getting about 2.5 : 1 I would say he folds about 25% of the time if he is competent.

He has position
hero has initiative
villain likely has future run out advantage (nut)

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭✭
42
• Red Chipper Posts: 119 ✭✭
Assume nothing is known about the player. 25% is about what I would put it at, too. I know the question might seem silly, but it's the kind of question that seems to appear when I start thinking about "any two card" scenarios, where fold equity is going to be the biggest factor.
• RCP Coach Posts: 4,069 -
For anyone thinking that V folds 25% of the time here, are you assuming:

A.) V isn't CBing too often, and thus has a range that can contend against the XR more often?
B.) V is continuing with a lot of marginal combos that can be blown away on the turn?
C.) V is continuing with a lot of marginal combos that will get sticky on the turn?
📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
SplitSuit wrote: »
For anyone thinking that V folds 25% of the time here, are you assuming:

A.) V isn't CBing too often, and thus has a range that can contend against the XR more often?
B.) V is continuing with a lot of marginal combos that can be blown away on the turn?
C.) V is continuing with a lot of marginal combos that will get sticky on the turn?

Just assuming pot odds / mdf + position. Hard to make any type of assumptions on a profile or range without knowing the board texture. Dry texture they probably cbet and fold to a xr too often. Again depending on how competent they are. If a tag checked a dry flop to me, where he usually cbets I would be some what suspicious and not take it as weakness with a free chance to steal the pot. I think that is too level 1 thinking. Just like the 1% series, if villain bets, hero should continue.
• NY, NYRed Chipper Posts: 91 ✭✭
edited August 2018
I like this question @joesize as a lot can be learned from thinking this way.

I think it is much higher. More like 70% fold. And if called and hero jams turn it's probably another 80% that villain now folds turn, because these players are just getting their nutted hands in on flop when check raised. This is 1-2 I'm assuming and no one applies this kind of next level aggression without the effective nuts. Most players recognize this and make HORRIBLE folds in these spots.

Also, 1-2 players stab for no reason. They are almost never balanced or thinking about doing so on flops that create good turn barreling spots. They just bet cuz it's fun and they only see about 80-100 hands a session, so they better get wide. Then you raise and they think about all the times they've paid off players in these spots, because the population as a whole always has it in these spots.

Here's a perfect example of a real hand I played in an MTT last week just to show you how awful low stakes players respond to next level aggression.

\$400 black chip bounty. I open AJo utg 2.4bb (60bb 2nd in chips at table) with 18 left (top 10 cash) and it folds to BB who JUST flats. Flop 844. He checks, I cbet, he raises, I jam. I have him covered but his stack is about 60% of mine. He insta folds QQ face up!!!! Says something like "tell me you got that beat" and I like literally think he called for sure and just turned his hand up, but then the dealer flips them over and mucks it. I'm just like WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK!?! and muck. We won't go deep into my play here, but quickly I had a very good read that this guy would be folding 100% of his value range (huge density of 8x) here and obviously folding his bluffs (this player type has almost no 4x holdings played this way--he check calls every time). I never thought he had QQ in his value range (so I was incorrect in that), but sure enough he even folded that. I couldn't believe it and honestly I think this was the worst played hand I've ever seen. The guy put in almost half his stack and folded after under-repping a monster. I took him out of his misery a few orbits later (and his \$100 chip) and he completely squandered an opportunity to be one of the chip leaders with two tables left and \$10k up top!

I know this is a bit different including some ICM implications, but it just goest to show you the type of hands these players are folding incorrectly. Moral of the story, low stakes players don't see balanced ranges (they're not watching Matt Berkey battle Garret Adelstein ever), they see people having it almost every single time when they apply next level aggression (3bet pre or god forbid the KK AA-only 4bet), so they adjust accordingly and over-over fold in these spots.

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭✭
kenaces wrote: »
42

glad at least 2 people got the reference :)
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭✭
kenaces wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
42

glad at least 2 people got the reference :)

3. Count me in ! Just let us the time to support the answer to everything haha
• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
kenaces wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
42

glad at least 2 people got the reference :)

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭✭
I can' give away the secrets of the universe
• Posts: 3,623 -
Austin wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
42

glad at least 2 people got the reference :)

Moderation In Moderation
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
TheGameKat wrote: »
Austin wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
42

glad at least 2 people got the reference :)

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭✭
Yeah I read the book when I was a kid. I loved it but I couldn't watch even 10m of the movie.
• Red Chipper Posts: 119 ✭✭
Of course, I know that when recent game history, players, and flops start to become known, a better estimate can be fleshed out: flop, J,7,2 rainbow, and he probably folds more, etc. But I’m just looking at this ATC play as a stand-alone, and, honestly, I haven’t even thought about the turn. I like to play poker, too, but these ideas have intrigued me ever since I watched the SplitSuit video on 3-betting with any two.
If players really miss the flop two thirds of the time, the fold percentage should be pretty high, and it's true that 1-2 players DO make HORRIBLE folds. I’m now thinking it could be at least 40%, and if it is, you could show a profit by making the play with any two. The break-even seems like it would be about 25%.
I don’t think a computer could help with this unless it had a data base of online history like the one Steve Selbrede uses, and even then, would it apply to live games? It would take a big bankroll to test drive the idea in a live game, and, could you book a big enough sample base at seventy bucks a throw? I know Variance would have to cut me an early break.
Also, I’m thinking that the profit prospects might be influenced by any number of other factors. For example, if you got two callers, and if the first calls the check-raise, the second might make a shove-squeeze, tempting you to take the pot odds to call and be all-in with your random hand against two that the Vs obviously liked. Another question would be: would the result be different if, instead of CO, the caller is MP1? After all, CO would probably be calling the PF raise a little wider, making it a little harder for him to continue.
I’m not sure about this gimmick as a rote play, but I’m going to try it a few times- who knows?
(As for… “him” to continue, no offense: I know this is an antiquated convention, but maybe I could be indulged my old-guy crotchet.)
• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
TheGameKat wrote: »
Austin wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
kenaces wrote: »
42

glad at least 2 people got the reference :)