---

Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Entity (Mid Stakes)

KK on right



Boomer, can you confirm that your win rate would be significantly higher if you just never picked up KK in a DC video? It would have felt fair for you to call and be good here for vindication (although you were good on the AQ hand earlier, which was surprising to me).

I think that was during my 0 for 7 run with KK this month

I love how it brought out the same discussion, pretty much, that we had on the previous KK nightmare, and these things happen. If the pot had been a couple of BB smaller I probably would have folded but 10-1...arrrgh.

hey guys,
there is one point that i saw in the vid:
U have quite no samplesize of the players and give them very much credit to their stats..
dschingis for example is playing a 28/22 stye, kicknyurace is playing 32/23 style, itsADAmyay plays24/19 and so on.
so i think u play in some spots too much with the stats, but use stats on a very small sample
that was just one point that i wanted to say.
i like the vid, and also its interesting to see a lag playing at 3/6 with the 1/3 blindstructre.

The stats are skewed in a way, certainly with Adam, in the fact that a lot of players will tighten up if there's a LAGTAG in the games playing aggressively, stealing and 3-betting. (Not saying that's wrong and in fact if there is a guy playing 30-ish/20-ish in your game who you consider to be ok postflop then the natural reaction should very well be to tighten up) So while their overall stats may be that way they are all a couple of pips lighter when I've played at their tables.

Not saying I'm that much of a huge LAGTAG, I think Rob called me a nit somewhere here (hidden imo), but it's a lot easier to up your VPIP that little bit when the tables more straightforward and passive than it is when someone's stealing at every opportunity given, 3-betting and value betting decently.

My general approach against an unknown dude with taggyish stats here is to call the flop and fold any 9 T J K turn and call anything else which either gives us a pair, pairs the board or gives us a gutter.
I then would usually look him up on any non - 9 T J K river too.
Sounds very simplistic but vs an unknown that's generally what I'd do, does this seem a bit fishy to any of you or is it an ok default?

I think that sounds reasonable, the problem is that we may not be getting to SD often enough. But it'd be really hard to calculate given the myriad variables (e.g., does villain always barrel turn, what about river, how do we feel about clubs, etc.).

By the way, at one point in the KK hand Rob asked, 'how much does a call cost us?' I will attempt to answer that.

I think Rob said he'd call without too much thought getting 15:1. If we assume that Rob is decent at estimation in these spots from his years of experience (which I think would be a fair assumption, but like Rob said, humans are VERY bad at this), then we can assume ~15:1 is about the breakeven point. That is, we'd need around 15:1 to make an EV neutral call.

So,

1 / (15+1) = 6.25% of the time we are good

Applying this to the actual hand:

The pot is $62, so the ~6% of the time we are good we make ~3.88

The ~94% of the time we are not good we lose 5.63

3.88 - 5.63 = (1.75)

From a theoretical and long-term point of view we are losing WELL under a big bet here. The meta benefits of calling here might have been worth 1/3 of a big bet (not having to worry about if you hero folded the best hand and being distracted during the rest of the session, not getting possibly owned on video, etc.).

Wow so you are saying even getting a massive 15:1 that that river call on the 4th spade river is bleeding chips? Seems almost unbelievable but if that's what the Math says then I tip my hat off to it and thanks be to you for working that out. Should make these river decisions insta-folds vs all but the most spazzy opponents wouldn't you say or am I drawing the wrong conclusions?

By the way with this:
3.88 - 5.63 = (1.75) shouldn't it be (-1.75) or am I not understanding how this works correctly?
My mathematical knowledge is only slightly better then that of most children.

Wow so you are saying even getting a massive 15:1 that that river call on the 4th spade river is bleeding chips? Seems almost unbelievable but if that's what the Math says then I tip my hat off to it and thanks be to you for working that out. Should make these river decisions insta-folds vs all but the most spazzy opponents wouldn't you say or am I drawing the wrong conclusions?

By the way with this:
3.88 - 5.63 = (1.75) shouldn't it be (-1.75) or am I not understanding how this works correctly?
My mathematical knowledge is only slightly better then that of most children.

It's not really bleeding chips it's less than 1/3rd of a BB and that's assuming our original assumption re 1 in 15 plus when you factor in the fact that anyone paying attention may be less inclined to bluff you in the future you may make it up in the future.

On the maths front the number being in brackets/parenthesis means it's negative.

[/accounting nit]

Thanks for the explanation of the number being in brackets.

Yeh I can't see me ever folding the river getting 15:1 in a HU pot, even vs a nit I'd have trouble so it's good to know I can use Meta as an excuse.
I'm pretty sure I've made dodgy calldowns vs river donks in these situations getting far worse then 15:1 though, I had no idea it would be this close getting 15:1 though, I'd of thought snap-call would be the river play getting those odds vs anyone so my snap-10:1 calls must have been much worse then I thought.

A5o on left

Yeah this is a tough spot. I'd love to hear more on this - maybe pass it on to What to do When?

Heh that's a great idea. I'll see if I can get DeathDonkey and Mike to find a way to do that.

Rob

Wow so you are saying even getting a massive 15:1 that that river call on the 4th spade river is bleeding chips?

No, I am saying that IF 15:1 is the true price we need to make a breakeven river call (that is, one with an EV of 0) then we are losing ~1/3 of a big bet by calling here getting 'only' ~10:1.

Boomer already explained the parentheses. I just thought the negative sign wouldn't be visible enough next to the equal sign so I used a different (but standard) denotation.

JJ/TT are much closer and I think I'd tend to call the flop and re-evaluate.

In both cases one thing that I think is important is that the first limper will likely call ~the same range for 1 bet as 2.

I thought some more about the JJ-TT and realized that the hands that UTG might fold to a raise, but would overcall, only have 2 outs anyway. If he has Jx and we have JJ he has 4 outs to a chop and if he has Tx he only has 2 jacks to hit. Same reasoning if we had TT. Thus I agree that a raise doesnt do much good for us.

Seems almost unbelievable but if that's what the Math says then I tip my hat off to it and thanks be to you for working that out.

This may seem like a silly philosphical remark, but it's really important that math never says anything on its own. The result depend on how we model reality. Given the model math gives us an answer, but if the model is off, so is the answer.

It's not like: Math has spoken, no need to argue any more !

It's not like: Math has spoken, no need to argue any more !

That's what you think.

That's what you think.

LOL

MATH HAS SPOKEN!

sushi, you got SOOOO owned.

I assume this is Rob's doing? What appears to be a custom subtitle makes me feel it must be a DC mod.

That's what you think.

Wow epic, well played