SRP MPvCO folding AA on the Turn

    • SRP MPvCO folding AA on the Turn

      SB: $67.68 (135.4 bb)
      BB: $60.19 (120.4 bb)
      UTG: $48.98 (98 bb)
      Hero (MP): $50.50 (101 bb)
      CO: $50 (100 bb)
      BTN: $97.87 (195.7 bb)

      Preflop: Hero is MP with :ac :ah
      UTG folds, Hero raises to $1.50, CO calls $1.50, 3 folds

      Flop: ($3.75) :4d :6s :jd (2 players)
      Hero checks, CO bets $1.75, Hero raises to $6.79, CO calls $5.04

      Turn: ($17.33) :kd (2 players)
      Hero checks, CO bets $8.23, Hero folds

      Villain is reg.

      Flop I mix xc and xr. Not sure if just cbetting is actually better?
      Turn is a clear check, but is folding here too nitty? I don't see too many bluffs here, I would guess that he would have to start bluffing with pairs, right?
    • Not quite sure, what range is played on the CO, but let's try:



      imgur.com/5HVw3U2 --- somehow I can't manage to insert an image?

      Display Spoiler
      100: TT-66, KTs, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 25: 33-22, AQs+, A9s-A2s, K9s, Q9s, J9s, T8s, AQo-AJo, KQo, 50: JJ, 55-44, AJs-ATs, KJs+



      I would think that he would call my xr with 77-TT that have one :diamond: , all 87s, A :spade: K :spade: , A :spade: Q :spade: , K :spade: Q :spade: and obviously all Jx+ and FD.



      For his Turn betting Range I gave him all Flushes, and everything worse than TT:



      imgur.com/a/0cZqGAG

      Display Spoiler
      100: TdTh, TdTs, TdTc, 9d9h, 9d9s, 9d9c, 8d8h, 8d8s, 8d8c, 7d7h, 7d7s, 7d7c, QdTd, JdTd, Jd9d, Td9d, 9d8d, 8d7d, 7d6d, 25: AdKd, AsKs, AdQd, AsQs, Ad9d, Qd9d, Ad8d, Td8d, Ad7d, Ad6d, Ad5d, Ad4d, Ad3d, Ad2d, 50: KdQd, KsQs, AdTd


      Against this range I have 47.19% Equity. Since I am just in Bluffcatch spot and would have to fold to any River bet on any runout my Realization Factor(RF) is < 1. My estimate would be RF = 0.6 ( Not sure if this is right: CO Turn betting range is about 40% flushes, so If he bets River with a 33% bluffs, he would be betting 60% = my RF estimate)

      this gives us a total Equity_with_RF of 28% , which makes it a close call (we only need 25%).


      In practice I think that this bluffing Range is too wide and CO should probably bet some Sets and 2P her. So I don't think folding here is bad.


      EDIT:
      I made a mistake with the RF, If we expect CO to bet about 60% on the river on average, and we fold to all those bets, we only realize 40%, so RF = 0,4. Which would make it a clear fold on the Turn.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by chitz ().

    • A few comments/questions from my sleepy point of view (i saw that you mentioned that, but IMO that makes the range a bit more realistic, so should be adjusted in that way) :

      1) turn betting range shouldn't contain J :diamond: or K :diamond: (of course i suppose the software accounts for that, but it's just more tricky to read the range line) as they are on the board (in spoiler) ;
      2) the betting range (the distribution of combos) looks a bit weird as it's nutted combos (flushes) and then pocket pairs, that are pressumably bluffing - i think it shouldn't be this polar(?) :
      2.1.) i think villain for value, especially given the turn sizing (1/2) is clearly betting KJs/44/66 (all of those where in your initial range, but are not in the turn betting range) ;
      2.2.) i would be giving villain something more like 78s (non :diamond: too), 76s (bottom pair) for bluffs, as IMO it's not that likely that he's bet/calling the pockets (even with diamond) on flop and also stabbing turn ;
      2.3.) small detail, but why would you give K :spade: Q :spade: more weight (50%) than A :spade: K :spade: (25%) on turn...?
      3) About the realization factor :

      chitz wrote:

      Against this range I have 47.19% Equity. Since I am just in Bluffcatch spot and would have to fold to any River bet on any runout my Realization Factor(RF) is < 1. My estimate would be RF = 0.6 ( Not sure if this is right: CO Turn betting range is about 40% flushes, so If he bets River with a 33% bluffs, he would be betting 60% = my RF estimate)

      EDIT:
      I made a mistake with the RF, If we expect CO to bet about 60% on the river on average, and we fold to all those bets, we only realize 40%, so RF = 0,4. Which would make it a clear fold on the Turn
      I'm not sure if i agree with the above though (or maybe i just don't know better, so hopefully anyone would correct me here :) ) :
      a) (rather a question here) - you gave villain flush combos, those are the nutted hands that make your equity to be as it is and not higher, but just because villain has flushes in his range it doesn't mean that he's going to go berzerk with anything else too betting it on the river, so i think that's it's already accounted that you're dead vs flushes, but you have nothing to realize vs those anyways, i'd say the realization problem would accor if you wouldn't get a chance to realize your equity vs bluffs or thinner value, like KJs on board pairing river (hope this makes sense, please comment), which brings me to --->
      b) you're assuming how much villain would be betting the river, but the issue is that we don't know what the river card is going to be and on different rivers there are quite a few different scenarios possible, let me to write out a few: b1) river pairs the board with 4 or 6 - sets are even less likely, while KJs might not even bet or bet small and you beat them ; b2) river blanks or even hits 4th diamond - 78s 76s bluffs give up on the river ; b3) river bricks or hits 4th diamond K :spade: Q :spade: and A :spade: K :spade: are checking it back ; b4) river comes another diamond, even though you don't beat them sets and lower(-est) flushes might not even be betting at this point... So once again, would love to hear someone clear it up, how do we actually figure our RF as IMO 0.4 is way too low ?(

      As always, looking forward to hear your thoughts and thank you for responses! :)
    • 1) The program accounts for card removal, so this hand isn't in his range. Don't know how this Hand got in there, but don't worry about it.

      2) Agree, betting range should include some 2P and sets, and bluff less with pairs. This would result into a stronger CO range against our hand, which makes folding a bit clearer. I just wanted to show that even with a range that bad, it is not a clear call for AA.
      2.1) probably just missed that things like 76s, but there aren't too many of that since I don't think all of those bet flop or even ColdCall preflop, so it doesn't change much if I include this.
      2.3) Thats coming from the preflop range I assumed for CO, since I think AKs is almost always a 3b. In fact I think I have never seen AKs just flat preflop, just included it, because lnternet mentioned it.

      3) Here I assumed, that we will always fold vs River bet, even if we hit a Set.
      a) Yes I think I made a mistake there. We only realize our equity if CO checks River. I didn't account for the fact, that we have a higher Equity vs his River check Range.
      b) That's just an approximation (the easiest/fastest one I could come up with :D), I would guess that on brick River, he will bet all his flushes. Ofc he won't do that if River is another :diamond: or if it pairs. So his average betting frequency is probably lower, maybe 40% - 50%?

      Not quite sure, how to approximate the RF now, but I will try to find out later.

      In summary I think it is still quite close, even with a higher RF, because we could give CO a stronger ranger, which is probably closer to reality than the one I gave him.
    • chitz wrote:

      In summary I think it is still quite close, even with a higher RF, because we could give CO a stronger ranger, which is probably closer to reality than the one I gave him
      I think i would be calling the turn most of the time because of the size and odds we're getting, but it of course depends and as you said, a close spot, certainly not a goldmine by any means :)

      chitz wrote:

      Not quite sure, how to approximate the RF now, but I will try to find out later.
      Looking forward to :)
    • motiejus wrote:

      chitz wrote:

      Not quite sure, how to approximate the RF now, but I will try to find out later.
      Looking forward to :)
      Didn't come up with anything smart. Easiest thing one can do is try to estimate how well you perform vs River xb. But I that's just gonna be a wild guess, which would probably just as bad as trying to guess the RF directly. Since for For my Solver result calling is indifferent to folding (for low calling frequency), RF might be about 0.6.
    • So as far as the realization that you will have on the river, I think it might look kind of like this. I might be oversimplifying it, but here goes anyway. If you call turn and get to the river 2 things will happen, as I know you are probably never leading river. Villain will bet or check back. If he checks back then you are going to realize 100% of your equity. If my thinking is correct, it doesn't matter what the actual equity is. The equity will be x% versus the range villain checks back. You will realize all of that equity whether the equity is 20% or 50% or 100%. So that makes a RF on check back of 1

      Where it gets tricky is with betting, unless you feel like you are going to fold pretty much always to a bet. If you are always folding then you are obvioulsy realizing 0% of your equity so your RF will be 0. I guess if you feel you will be calling some rivers, then you would have some calculations to make. Again, on the river you have a certain equity, if you call the hand ends on the river so you are going to realize all the equity, so RF of 1 when you call river. So you have a RF of 1 when you call and an RF of 0 when you fold. Just figure out percentages that you call and percentage fold and use frequency you call and fold to give you the RF when a bet is made. Would get more complicated if you would be raising river, as you then might be able to realize more than 100% of your equity. It doesn't seem like raising is something being considered here though

      You would now have RF of check back and bet. Estimate frequencies that villain will be betting and checking back and come up with overall RF. So super simple example would be villain bets 50% of the time and you always fold to a bet. (.5*1) + (.5*0)=.5. So you would have an RF of .5 in that scenario.

      I could be completely wrong and if so I am sure someone smarter than I will chime in, but that is how I would look at it
    • fawltyfelix wrote:

      So as far as the realization that you will have on the river, I think it might look kind of like this. I might be oversimplifying it, but here goes anyway. If you call turn and get to the river 2 things will happen, as I know you are probably never leading river. Villain will bet or check back. If he checks back then you are going to realize 100% of your equity. If my thinking is correct, it doesn't matter what the actual equity is. The equity will be x% versus the range villain checks back. You will realize all of that equity whether the equity is 20% or 50% or 100%. So that makes a RF on check back of 1

      Where it gets tricky is with betting, unless you feel like you are going to fold pretty much always to a bet. If you are always folding then you are obvioulsy realizing 0% of your equity so your RF will be 0. I guess if you feel you will be calling some rivers, then you would have some calculations to make. Again, on the river you have a certain equity, if you call the hand ends on the river so you are going to realize all the equity, so RF of 1 when you call river. So you have a RF of 1 when you call and an RF of 0 when you fold. Just figure out percentages that you call and percentage fold and use frequency you call and fold to give you the RF when a bet is made. Would get more complicated if you would be raising river, as you then might be able to realize more than 100% of your equity. It doesn't seem like raising is something being considered here though

      You would now have RF of check back and bet. Estimate frequencies that villain will be betting and checking back and come up with overall RF. So super simple example would be villain bets 50% of the time and you always fold to a bet. (.5*1) + (.5*0)=.5. So you would have an RF of .5 in that scenario.

      I could be completely wrong and if so I am sure someone smarter than I will chime in, but that is how I would look at it

      That's what i did at my first attempt of estimating RF.

      Not sure if we are using the same definition of RF :D . Here is mine:
      RF*Equity(Turn) = Equity_real.

      I can't use your RF and plug it into the equation, because we don't realize our Equity against Turn villains Turn range, because his range obviously changes. Don't know if it is understandable what I am trying to say, so here is an example:

      We have
      Equity(Turn) = 0.5
      We check on all River runouts and fold to any bet.
      Villain bets River with freq = 0.5
      If Villain checks back, we have Equity(River) = 1

      If I use your calculation, we get RF = 0.5 which gives us: Equity_real(Turn) = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25
      Calculating the equity directly we get: Equity_real = 0.5*0 + 0.5*1 = 0.5 , thus we get RF = 1