River calls and magic carpets

YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 507 ✭✭✭
edited March 2 in General Concepts
Here's one that seems relevant given the battle of the youtubers last week. If you find yourself on the river in the worst of all spots, holding something in middle against a polarized range, how do you decide which hands to call and which hands to fold? What are your metrics? Do you know your ranges well enough to decide what is the best X% to call with and where your actual hand falls right now? Be honest. Are you guessing? If you believe that your opponent is overbluffing but just slightly, would you call with your entire set of bluff catchers? If not, why not?

Comments

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 2,302 ✭✭✭✭
    If someone is over bluffing by some small % why would the answer (and your assumption) be to call with greater than the % change?
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 507 ✭✭✭
    If your opponent breaks the pot odds contract, he has either made a bad bet or is attempting to exploit you in 1 of 2 ways. On the river when facing a polarized bet, a bluff catcher has equity exactly equivalent to the fraction of hands your opponent has decided to bluff with (measured against available value). If that fraction is different from the odds being laid then the choice to call or fold is clear. It's all or nothing.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 2,302 ✭✭✭✭
    Right, so then it becomes slightly +EV to bluffcatch. That is the dogma.

    I would argue 1) that +EV does not equal max EV, so one tries to find the best candidates to call with and 2) It assumes that you arrive on the river with the "correct" number of buff catchers to begin with. For example, in the hand that bothers you so much you accuse him of "clicking buttons," is there no end to the pairs Torelli should call with if you both conclude Polk is overbluffing?
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 507 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2
    Yes, there is no end to the pairs Torelli should call with if he concludes Polk is overbluffing this spot. All have functionally equal expectation if Polk is truly poled. Once you arrive on the river and face a bet there is no difference between +EV and max EV. Selecting the best candidate hands to call with is only relevant if you believe your opponent to be balanced.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 2,302 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2
    Well, I've always taken you seriously Yosh so I'll revisit this. Part of our difference might be that I'm not sure in our original example that Polk is overbluffing - there's a difference between that and examining the evidence correctly and making the right choice. Perhaps I'm thinking too much about that and not your proposition.

    In any case, I've passed on our little quibble to Mr. Torelli so maybe we'll get some direct insight.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭✭
    $25-$50 Uncapped game
    I think UTG straddled for $100.
    AT is UTG+2 - raises to $325 with :JS: :JC: ($15K+)
    Folds to DP on Button - 3-bets to $1025 with :8C: :6C: ($25K+)
    Ron in SB with :AC: :QD: folds.
    AT tank/calls $700 more.
    Pot: 2225
    Flop: :AS: :2S: :7D:
    AT checks.
    DP bets $1250
    AT calls.
    Pot: 4725
    Turn: :3D:
    AT checks.
    DP bets $3175
    AT calls.
    Pot: 11075
    River: :KH:
    AT checks
    DP bets 6350
    AT tank/calls.

    I don't see the why it seems so complicated.
    AT raised from essentially UTG.
    DP on the button can 3-bet here with a wide, wide range.
    So AT calls.
    Flop is A-high with a flush draw.
    AT checks and
    DP makes a C-bet (expected)
    AT calls
    Turn completes a straight and brings on board another flush.
    AT check/calls a turn bet.
    DP should be betting all his draws here as AT may be on a draw himself (although he's probably not calling such a large turn bet on a draw)
    So here AT should have a pp, AQ, AJ or AT.
    DP can be betting turn with his entire range.
    On river - no flush gets there.
    AT check - and DP bets about 60% pot
    Now you may think that DP can have :KS: :QS: here - but in reality, if he did and rivered the K, wouldn't he make a different bet? Or even check his hand since he's got showdown value?

    @Yosh
    DP is definitely poled here.
    But guys like him would actually pot or overpot if they had 45 or AK or a set.
    Since he didn't, it seems kind of standard to call river bet with any pp greater than a 7. DP's either got two pair or better, or a missed :SPADE: or :DIAMOND: flush draw or a stone-cold bluff.
    If you add up how many hands DP can have including 76s and 78s that he'd double barrel with... and possibly triple barrel... it seems like a simple call, no?

    Here's another way of looking at it... since DP can be playing up to 25% of his hands to a 3-bet from the button... shouldn't his check-back range include a ton of the hands that get there by the river? So if he never checks back on any street... shouldn't a big portion of those hands be excluded?
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 507 ✭✭✭
    edited March 3
    @kagey, so your general process in these spots (which is really the question at the heart of this thread) is to attempt to psuedo-count combos by way of available draws and guess if your opponent could be bluffing and then make the call/fold based on that determination? Your hand is irrelevant? What if your opponent is very good and/or you come up with a value/bluff ratio very similar to the price offered?
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭
    Just listen to the little voice inside you
  • Jimmy3150Jimmy3150 Red Chipper Posts: 360 ✭✭
    or raise with a bluff catcher. Just check out this video (slightly different obviously as he has A high) no 3-bet... but I still see this double barrel as polarising yet the guy opts to raise ... doesn't make much sense to me so if someone could explain.

  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 507 ✭✭✭
    edited March 3
    @Jimmy3150 this player holds the :AS: and overbets raises the river repping the nut flush. It is a very logical bluff hand. My original question holds here as well. On the river your opponent has made the most polarizing bet possible, all-in overbet. You are now in the middle with K high. How do you decide which hands to call and which hands to fold? What are your metrics?
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 3,170 ✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    But guys like him would actually pot or overpot if they had 45 or AK or a set.
    Since he didn't, it seems kind of standard to call river bet with any pp greater than a 7. DP's either got two pair or better, or a missed :SPADE: or :DIAMOND: flush draw or a stone-cold bluff.

    So then getting to @Yosh 's point, why is the 7 important, specifically? e.g. is Doug making this play with 87? You seem to be saying not, in which case shouldn't we be calling with 66 here too?

  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    So then getting to @Yosh 's point, why is the 7 important, specifically? e.g. is Doug making this play with 87? You seem to be saying not, in which case shouldn't we be calling with 66 here too?

    Put this in a 2/5 context against a guy who's got the ability and will to make 3-barrel bluffs.
    Since his range includes tons of busted draws and suited connectors, I believe he could be doing this with 87 or 76... as well as air.
    It's funny because he could have KK or QQ in his range... at first... but most players aren't pigheaded enough to fire 3-barrels against an opponent who's likely check calling with AX in his range.

    @Yosh questioned what pairs do we call with?
    I'd say 88+... with 77, AA and KK being raises/shoves.
    I'd probably fold 66 on the flop.

    I think the decision is not something you can program into a bot.
    It's a variety of experience/knowledge that guides your decision.
    So Chin's "voice" is one that comes from seeing thousands of hands.

    It ultimately comes down to not caring or not needing to be right this time.
    The betting is polarizing, but the bet itself is not.
    A shove would be more polarizing and a very, very tough call.
    6 into almost 12 means we got to be right 1 out of 3 times?
    (pot would be 17, almost 18, and we need to call approx 6)

    isn't this an easy call against an opponent that's doing this a ton more than just an Ace. (BTW - I don't know much about DP's play, but his betting line doesn't really feel like an A trying to get value. Nor KQ, KK or QQ being exploitative. It feels like a player trying to bluff another player who's range is capped.)

    So yeah Yosh... I'd ask myself, "what am I beating?"
    87, 76, :SPADE: FD, :DIAMOND: FD, 34 and any random hand that he 3-bet with like QJs, JTs, etc.
    then, what hands beat me?
    A2, 22, 77, 54, AA..
    On the river, DP's got more bluffs in his range than made hands.
    Since I've only got to be right 1 out 3 times... I call.

    If I'm wrong, I reload.