Core 2.0 - Level II - Exploting Frequencies

XavozaXavoza Red Chipper Posts: 3 ✭✭
Hi all, this is my first post here, so let me know if something is not right.

While studying Core 2.0, I came across this:

“Fold Turn C-Bet To Raise: Most players don’t intuitively know what acceptable values for this stat are. Take some time, run some calculations, and come up with your own estimates regarding when we might have an exploitative opportunity.”

So I decided to give it a try and though about the following cenario:

Villain is on the CO and Hero is on the BTN.
Preflop: It folds to V which opens for 3bbs. H calls and the pot is 7.5bbs.
Flop: V fires again a 66% pot bet. H calls and pot is 17.5bbs.
Turn: V fires again a 66% pot bet (~11.6bbs). H raises 2x V bet (23.1bbs).

In this situation, we are making an autoprofit if V folds more than ~44% of the time (risk is ~23bbs and reward is ~52bbs). I would therefore raise 2x V bet if "fold turn cbet to raise" was maybe 55% or higher.

Two questions here:
1) Are those sizings (both for H and V) within the guidelines of Core 2.0?
2) Are the calculation and conclusion right?

Thanks in adavance!
Tagged:

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,933 -
    Check your calculation using W%W$ - L%L$ = 0 at break even.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • ulysses27ulysses27 Red Chipper Posts: 140 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Check your calculation using W%W$ - L%L$ = 0 at break even.

    Just curious why this formula vs the one he used?
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,933 -
    The formula is fine, but the conclusion got mangled, and the EV formula gives a back check.

    Specifically, we contribute 23bb of a 52bb pot. 23/52 ~0.44, as stated by the OP. So that's the folding frequency we need for autoprofit: 44%. Back-substituting:

    EV = 0.44($29) - 0.56($23) ~ 0 as required.

    I just wasn't sure where the 55% fold requirement was coming from since it's 44%, and the EV formula is a convenient way to check.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,933 -
    Concerning the bet sizings, they're okay for a generic board, but might vary significantly on certain boards. But as an illustrative example, everything hangs together.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • XavozaXavoza Red Chipper Posts: 3 ✭✭
    Thanks for the answer, Kat. 55% was just some extra margin since 44% is the break-even percentage.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,933 -
    edited October 17
    Xavoza wrote: »
    Thanks for the answer, Kat. 55% was just some extra margin since 44% is the break-even percentage.

    Okay, I wondered about that. However, there are a couple of reasons why it might be better not to build in that extra cushion. First, you usually have some hand equity. For example, maybe your opponent has top pair on a QT4 and you make this play with AX. You can river your ace and still win. Second, even if your opponent calls the raise, you may have a profitable bluff on the river.

    So the general takeaway is that these auto-profit calculations are pretty robust, since you will invariably have additional paths to win the pot.
    Moderation In Moderation

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file