1/3 hand from new 2+2 book

Against a range that includes all of those JsTx and JxTs hands, and all the Ts8x (but not Tx8s), that also includes AsQx, sets, and a bunch of small flushes, we are a 34.29% vs 65.71% dog.

Even if we add in the Tx8s combos (99,66,AsQs,JsTs,Ts8s,8s7s,7s5s,5s4s,AsQc,AsQd,AsQh,JcTs,JdTs,JhTs,JsTc,JsTd,JsTh,Tc8s,Td8s,Th8s,Ts8c,Ts8d,Ts8h), we only get up to 37.94%. Ad in AxQs (getting really iffy here, imo) and we are at 41.30%.

I just see no way to get to the equity as presented in your OP, or even to the "small underdog" point as given in the book. I realize the point they were trying to make, but it works better with deeper stacks, IMO. There is just so little of his range that is ever folding river for $53 when the pot is already almost $400.

Do you think KsKx matters here or is BB's range too strong and we should fold that as well?

am i crazy or is just a call because we have less than 50% but more than enough to call vs this bet?

ppl getting too bogged down in the ranges bc they dunno how to answer the question lol

we need ~38% to call 110 into 180 (110 / 290 = .379). i think we're supposed to have 50+% to raise but now that seems stupid when i actually type it out and i guess theres some element of fe / protection thats going to end up being impossible to model. would shove or fold ingame bc of stacks without really thinking about it

haha yes this is standard.

If we had the Ks, we'd be laughing. Against that wide range above, we're 57.68%, and against the one I consider more likely, we're still at 44%, which gets us in the range your example was designed for.

I'm going with Sklansky's old partner here, Ed Miller.

I think it's rule 2 in The Course, which is basically when a typical 1/2 player bets big on turn or river, they very likely have a strong made hand, and you basically can't profitably pick off bluffs.

Seems like a fold because we're going to be bluff catching river often, but their range composition is definitely important

FE/protection are part of it, but it's also that villain can bet again

Imagine villain bets $100 into $200 with 25% bluffs. On the river calling is worth $0 but on the turn (if neither of you have outs and villain has $200 extra) call is losing $100 because they can always shove river balanced

It's sometimes correct to fold turn in position even with >60% equity, polarization and leverage are that powerful

Depends on villain again but now I'm shoving most. It's only villains that hero can pin as having mostly big flushes and that is rare. The big bet is more likely a low flush as the nut flush usually will bet small to keep hero in the hand.
There are 3 cases, if villain already has a flush then hero may have a redraw to a higher flush, if villain is drawing to a nut flush then hero has the best hand right now and wins on brick rivers, if villain is drawing to a lower flush then villain has no outs unless they have something with their flush draw and that just gives them a few. There are more ways hero can be ahead and more ways hero can have a redraw.

This is a good point. Solvers will fold >60% equity hands OTT vs polar sizing's when those hands have little chance to improve OTR. But then call hands with <50% equity if those hands are drawing to the nuts or close to it.

can you show me the math for this? i somewhat understand the turn is a fold because of future streets of betting intuitively but i want to see numbers to see that we are losing 100% of our turn call. i vaguely remember a sauce toy game video about this from ages ago

based on my region a large turn donk is almost always a picked up draw and i heavily agree with the ppl who said AsQx is a big part of his range

I set up a PIO sim

board 2223r
1.5 SPR, only bet size is 50%
OOP has 25% air (7d6d) and 75% nuts (Ad2d)
IP has a bluff catcher with no outs (TT)

Turn

It's not -50 since on an Ad or 2d river OOP has only air

OOP needs only 57% nuts to make IP indifferent

wild. can u just show me a pic of the sim as a whole too. i believe you i just want to confirm the pot size / bet sizes are right because thats mind blowing to me. thank you though for running it

Question makes no sense as presented.
Maybe there's more to it in the book?

We magically have a perfectly known amount of equity on the turn, but will not know perfectly on the river?
So my guess is the "answer" is we shove turn because perfect math says it's ok, and we don't make mistakes on non-perfectly known rivers? (refused to vote though)
Just ignore everything else and pile the money in a 1-3 with one pair and no draw when people rip 1.5x pot into you, I have a GTO sim that says it's fine!

Not sure how that helps anyone play at 1-3.

Also the "we can't call turn at 1-3 with perfectly known equity because we'll get perfectly bluffed on the river and lose some/all of that equity" side track can GTFO.

Also GTFO for 1-3 players donk betting 1.5x pot on turn with 12% of called pot behind.
Some might shove, some might bet pot, but pretty much nobody is doing this sizing ... but then we wouldn't get the genius math riddle to help us beat 1-3.

Reading this thread has made me cranky.

There's actually less to it in the book. It doesn't give assumed equities, just that "you think you are a small underdog."

The point it's trying to make is that if pot odds demand a call OTT, sometimes you are actually better off shoving, because parts of his range that will call the shove may fold OTR if they miss. IMO, it uses a bad example, because 1)we probably aren't only a slight dog in the example given and 2) we have so little money behind. I'd like the example a lot better if we held Ks and had about a half pot behind.

That's actually my issue with a lot of examples in the book. They often don't explain the thought process or ranges behind where they assume you stand they just say "if you think consider X as an exploit." A lot of it I agree with, but I think we'd get a better discussion of the reasoning and often of the math ITF than we do in the book.

Classic Sklansky/Malmuth imo. A lot of "if....then" conditional statements. Although I think you mean "because parts of his range that will call the shove may check back OTR if they miss."

I tried appealing to Mason's ego to get him to come generate some discussion in the forum but it didn't work. Here was his response.

Spoiler

Show

To be fair, I think the strength of the book is less in the hand history examples and more in the concepts. This is why I think the book has received some mixed reviews on Amazon since a lot of readers will focus on the more accessible action of the hand history instead of the underlying concepts it is trying to convey.

I didn't save it but I did nodelock TT to continue and OOP pure jammed rivers for 1/2 pot to make TT 0ev. Hopefully it makes sense as the concept is the most important part

Thanks Doodoo. Can you sum up for us what we're meant to take from this, what is the correct answer and why? Is it just that we are meant to shove? Maybe im reading too much into it.

And to go off that, if we are meant to shove based on the example, I wonder how realistic that is. For me its going to be so player dependent because I see a lot of players that will just always have us beat here. I know it because I've seen a ton of their showdowns where they made bets like this and they almost all show their good hand after betting like this even when it doesnt go to showdown. They are just proud they made a hand and are so straight forward they arent trying to have any deception in their game. They want to play lots of hands, make high hands, socialize, show down everything, and have fun.

It's just a conceptual thing I learned online but I found it in Sklansky's book as well. You can jam flop/turns when you have <50% equity against their range, especially if you can't play future streets as well as your opponent.

I don't like Sklansky's example either but it's not that relevant to the concept (because yes you should fold in game OTT).

I remembered there being a calculator for it online somewhere so I asked NG (newguyhere) and this will make it easier to understand.

Calculator here:

https://redchippoker.com/fold-equity-cal...

We input the relevant data:

So in this spot you need roughly ~41% equity to not lose money on the jam (163/400).

The main point of the thread is that you can be behind your opponent's range but still profitably jam into your opponent. It's a pretty counter-intuitive conclusion imo.

Trying to be less grumpy...

The problems I see are:

1. It's _easiesr_ and maybe better for humans in some cases, but esp. in 2024 I'm surprised people are teaching it. Robots don't "think", but if the concept was still valid in 2024 I'd expect some kind of GTO like sims showing robots shoving hands which aren't doing great vs. calling ranges and don't fold out anything worthwhile.

2. I see people horrifically misapply this almost as often as they apply it okay to well, at low stakes. Deciding they have to shove into a polarized range because they are calling all rivers or w/e. So they are "surprised" sometimes when V folds and "it's just a cooler" when V has them crushed.

3. It more often applies when OOP, and this isn't. Like this example just ignores V having two pair or a set and checking river when a flush hits, and how losing that $50 is worse than not doing so. Or even how if a spade hits the river and V shoves the last bit of money in then it's extremely difficult for V to have a worse hand than H, even if he doesn't have spades.

4. Then there's the problem of people shoving all the nut draws, and now shoving all their value hands but still deciding that some draws can't be folded but shouldn't be shoved ... so now their entire calling range is trash on brick rivers. This might not be terrible at1-3 live, but its not good either.

5. The times I think it's more often useful are in PLO where we'd talk about lack of visibility, and the concept applies regardless of actual equity (can have something like AJJT on JT65ds without any flush draws ourself so position becomes less useful).

6. And the obvious, if you posted the example hand to the forum (or, I assume, any low stakes live coach) they wouldn't be talking at all about if H should call or shove. If the stakes were even 5/10 I'd have been less grumpy, but it's just a huge punt to do anything but fold vs. a lot of 1-3 players.

"The main point of the thread is that you can be behind your opponent's range but still profitably jam into your opponent. It's a pretty counter-intuitive conclusion imo."

Ok that makes sense

So, if we stick in our last $163 + villain's $163 (assuming villain never folds) at 43.76% equity we can expect $143 out of that $326 that went in on the turn. So, we're losing $20 in equity purely on the turn shove, but there's $70 in the pot already. We have $30 of equity in the pot. So, calling is +ev from a math standpoint. $10 Sklansky bucks. Woohoo.

This example and range is so impractical for live games though. I wonder if the book was written for online games.

Against a capable V, I probably jam. If we lose, so be it.

Against a bad rec, I probably fold. If it was a bad fold, so be it.

Bart Hanson HATES this book fwiw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f70tVMGt...

Why are we 4x'ing pf and potting the flop?