100PLO - Nut Wrap 6way

Posted by

Posted by posted in Low Stakes

100PLO - Nut Wrap 6way

BB: Moxyyy: $6.82
UTG: hcascais: $118.86
HJ: Ph33roX: $112.09
CO: Lackys07: $137.32
BN: Memo19650101: $80.40
SB: 1round4fun: $100
Preflop ($1.50) (6 Players)
Ph33roX was dealt Q 4 A J
hcascais calls $1, Ph33roX raises to $4, Lackys07 calls $4, Memo19650101 calls $4, 1round4fun calls $3.50, Moxyyy raises to $6.82, and is all in, hcascais calls $5.82, Ph33roX calls $2.82, Lackys07 calls $2.82, Memo19650101 calls $2.82, 1round4fun calls $2.82
Flop ($41.92) K 8 T (6 Players)
1round4fun checks, hcascais bets $39.08
Notice that flop is played in a sidepot that doesn't include one of the players who's all-in preflop. I believe villain's range is KT+ for the most part, with the occasional wrap. Is stacking off here fine?

31 Comments

Loading 31 Comments...

Hcstaaalk 10 years, 3 months ago

I think u hold the hand of his bottom tange, every wrap he like to donk and stack off is better than yours, against Two Pair or Sets we are behind, imo snapfold vs unknown and fishy players, vs regs its depend on his stats ...

superT 10 years, 3 months ago

My intuition said gaaaaamble, but looking at it more closely we need ~42% to get it in assuming it goes HU against the bettor. Against 30%:(KT,KK,TT,88,AQJ,QJ9) we only have about 38%, and I kinda doubt others cram it in with hands that do poorly against us often enough to make stacking off good.

I wonder if we could call though. That way we can fold on board pairs OTT, maybe have weaker hands come along, or get a multiway gamble which should be alright when drawing to a lot of nut outs. The weaker hands that might come along make a split often when we hit though, which is horrible and probably means that we rather want them to fold.

TLDR: I think it's a fold.

unbuwoha 10 years, 3 months ago

I disabled the other guys so that we can see if shoving or calling is best HU. You did not provide info on the limper. I assumed fishy stats. Adding some QJ+P combos did not change the turn equity distribution noticably. For example vs "KT+" our equity on K turns would be 0%, after adding the draws "KT+,QJ+:(K,T)" it goes up to 4%.

Our equity share is roughly 7BB. When we push our EV is -8BB. Because we can comfortably fold K,T and 8 and stack off the rest (on 2c we have 25% eq), the EV of calling should be higher than stacking off OTF. By calling we can also keep in some dominated J97 and maybe 976 type of hands.


Aleksandra ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

This is multiway hand with many ppl in it, and our equity is rather high if we count more then 1 person calling, which i think we can assume wil happen 90 % + time. Also, to maximize EV at this spot, we want as many ppl possible in this hand, so that when we hit we get a max value, so if i were you,  i would just flat first bet and hope as many ppl possible come along. Flatting also allows us to save some money on worse turns, as paired board ones, where we can simply and sadly fold, but minimizing our losses as well, so that play option kinda gives us most possibilities.

My way to play it, doing calc for that is beyond my current ability, but feels like most EV+ at the spot.

midori 10 years, 3 months ago

Why is our equity high in a MW all-in pot?  Very often, someone else will have some of our outs in their hand.  

DingusEgg 10 years, 3 months ago

I feel like I would play this pretty straight forward since everyone and their brother called. With no backdoor FD and facing the possibility of a reraise behind me, its a tough spot. The UTG limped and then potted the flop into the field, I have to think he is very strong and that at least some of my outs are dead. I begrudgingly hit the fold button.


ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

Testing Aleks' hypothesis:
We do better when our money goes in MW than HU

It sounds intuitively obvious to me that when we are drawing with nutty outs, and can not win without hitting our draw, we prefer to keep players in to give ourselves better pot odds/implied odds. But multiway pots are complicated, so let's check this with some simple modeling.

Starting with some range assumptions. We don't know how these people play, but any reasonable set of assumptons is better than putting them on random hands, so let's go with this:

UTG: $FI30!FI$12 (limp-calls top 30% minus a 12% openraising range)
CO: $FI30!$3B4i (flats 30% minus a tight IP 3B range)
BU: $FI30!$3B4i (ditto)
SB: $FI30!$3B4o (flats 30% minus a tight OOP 3B range)
BB: $FI30 (shrugs and jams a top 30% range to roll the dice in a multiway pot)

Now, assume UTG leads with KT+,QJ+ and that players behind us will call with same, when they do continue. We'll explore two scenarios:

1) The players behind us all fold

2) CO continues behind us

EV when players behind us all fold

First we disable all players behind us from the calculation (right-click --> "Disable from calculation", and note the red dots that appear on their seats). We are then 32% in the $40.92 main pot (UTG, Hero, BB). 

Disabling BB as well tells us we are 43% in the heads-up side pot with UTG:


Now we can find the EV of calling UTG's flop bet (ignoring future betting and implied odds when we hit). The EV for calling the flop bet has two contributions, main pot and side pot:

EV (call HU)
= EV (main) + EV (side)
= 0.32*(40.92) + (0.43*(2*39.08) - 39.08)
= $7.62

Then we find EV of jamming our draw in this HU scenario:

EV (jam HU)
= EV (main) + EV (side)
= 0.32*(40.92) + (0.43*(2*105.27) - 105.27)
= -$1.64

Because of the overlay from the pot we make money by calling. But obviously, when we are an underdog in the HU side pot, we prefer to draw as cheaply as possible and jamming does not do us any good. Also, since we have implied odds when hitting, EV (call HU) will be higher in reality than what we calculated here.

EV when CO gets into the pot with us

Now we enable CO (Lackys07) and assume that he has gotten involved with KT+,QJ as well. We repeat the above procedure and find our EV for calling and jamming. We will assume CO overcalls when we call and jams when we jam (we have to make some simplifications to keep math manageable).

Our equity in UTG/Hero/CO/BB main pot is 25%:

Then we disable BB with a mouse click and find we are 30% in 3-way side pot with UTG and CO.

Now we repeat our calculation of EV(call) and EV(jam) assuming CO calls when we do and jams when we do:

EV (call MW)
= EV (main) + EV (side)
= 0.25*(40.92) + (0.30*(3*39.08) - 39.08)
= $6.32

So when we call, we do slightly worse CO in the pot (+$6.32 compared to the +$7.52 we had vs only UTG). Now we find the EV of jamming with him in the pot:


EV (jam MW)
= EV (main) + EV (side)
= 0.25*(40.92) + (0.30*(3*105.27) - 105.27)
= -$0.30

When we jam, we do better with CO in the pot (-$0.30 vs -$1.64). 

Results not totally conclusive, so let's go one more round.  We pull in BTN as well with a KT+,QJ range and repeat the EV calculations once more. BTN is a little shorter stacked, so we will have two side pots, but we'll ignore that and do the calculation assuming he has a similar stack. 

I find that we are now 21% in the 5-way main pot and 23% in 4-way side pot. 

So we get:

EV (call MW)
= EV (main) + EV (side)
= 0.21*(40.92) + (0.23*(4*39.08) - 39.08)
= $5.47

EV (jam MW)

= EV (main) + EV (side)
= 0.21*(40.92) + (0.23*(4*105.27) - 105.27)
= $0.17

So as we pull in CO and BTN one at a time:

EV (Call) = $7.52 --> $6.32 --> $5.47
EV (Jam) = -$1.64 --> -$0.30 --> $0.17

Conclusion:

As we pull in more opponents, the EV of calling the flop bet (in a vacuum, ignoring implied odds) decreases slightly, but we always have a profitable call. The EV of jamming increases slightly, but we will not make money from jamming regardless of how many opponents come in. Jamming and risking to isolate ourselves vs UTG is the single worst thing we can do. So we should always call.

Note that we have ignored two things in our simulation:

- Future implied odds when pot is not jammed
- Weaker hands our opponents might get involved with (we gave all strong ranges)

Ignoring implied odds will underestimate EV (Call) by quite a bit. Ignoring opponent rag hands underestimates both EVs. Here is what the EVs look like when we put all players on K8+,QJ+,J9:

EV (Call HU) = +$8.40
EV (Jam, HU)= +$0.46

EV (Call UTG/CO/BTN) = +$7.03
EV (Jam UTG/CO/BTN) = +$4.38

Estimating implied odds is hard, but we have that to add as well. We will not attempt that task, but it seems safe to conclude that we want to call and welcome as many opponents as possible. Since we have a +EV call regardless of the number of opponents, and since calling is always better than jamming, we should call on the flop and hope for good things to happen. 

The worse hands they get in with, the better for us, and I also think implied odds works strongly in our favor those times the pot does not get jammed.



midori 10 years, 3 months ago

Zen,

Thanks for your thorough analysis, and my intuition seems to be off here. ;)

One thing I'd like to add is, I'm not so sure if players will flat our iso-raise this wide.  In particular, I doubt CO will flat as much as 30% in this spot, when he (still) has to worry about possibly getting squeezed or overcalled by players behind him.  This does not have a significant effect on our EV calculation, because we are only interested in {KT+,QJ} portion of CO's range anyway, but thought I'd point out.

Also, I am assuming that you assigned the range of {KT+,QJ} to both UTG and CO?  It'd be a bit optimistic if these guys are playing naked QJ like this, so I added a pair to go along with: {KT+, QJ:8+}.  This shouldn't make a lot of difference because it's hard to have "naked" QJ on this board, but just for the sake of completion.  Up against these ranges, our equity is 26% in a 4-way pot (with BB), 30% in a 3-way pot (without BB), and 38% in a HU pot against UTG.

Another minor thing is, the EV can be a bit misleading here in case we just flat, whether CO overcalls or not.  For example, if the turn pairs and UTG just jams, it's a bit awkward for us, especially if CO is behind us.  We might make an incorrect call or fold and that can hurt our EV.  But again, this is only a minor consideration and shouldn't affect the overall result by much.

- midori


ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

Midori: Had a formula typo in first draft, redid before you posted. 

About ranges, we can assign ranges in every which way. This was a rough model to explore the principle: How does our hand perform multiway vs decent ranges. And how does it do HU.

We can conclude one thing strongly: Calling is +EV (of course assuming we play turns accurately), and jamming does not do us any good. 

So we should call.


midori 10 years, 3 months ago

Zen,

Thanks for the prompt reply!  I will edit out the formula part because now it's a moot point.

So, am I correct to understand that we should call because it's better than jamming or folding (which I agree), but we still (slightly) prefer the players behind us to fold rather than call?

- midori

ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

midori,

Calling outperforms folding and jamming, so we call. Nothing bad can happen, and good things may happen, some of which may be very good, like getting overcallers that pay us off when we hit.

- zenfish

P.S. Signing posts is cute, maybe I start doing that. :-)


ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

spassewr: 

Glad you liked it. :-) My heart is currently spoken for, but if there's a big dowry, I am always open for offers ... (because there is no dowry currently). 


superT 10 years, 3 months ago

Thank you for sharing this, very well written and concise.

However, I don't really agree with the assumptions. Ignoring future betting when calculating the EV of calling leads to results that can easily be way off, since in reality there is another $70ish left behind that is going in on very nearly any turn (or on the flop if someone ships ofc). The math you did is basically comparing whether we prefer to have a smaller or bigger stack when we gii on the flop, and it should be kind of obvious that we prefer the smaller one since we have odds to go with a smaller stack, but never really have an equity edge so that there'd be value in getting even more money in.

To get the actual EV of calling with stacks left to play we'd need to figure out the EV and probability of different ways the hand plays out after the initial call (we get jammed on otf, we gii ott, turn pairs and we fold etc.). No idea what that amounts to but there could easily be a somewhat significant difference since calling to fold turn is really expensive, and if something like QJxx comes along we only win 1/2 of the pot with a sizable chunk of our outs, which is worse the more there is left to play for. Calling could still easily be the best play, but I'm not sure we can conclude it from this analysis alone.

ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

SuperT:

It's a simple model used to explore trends (MW vs HU EV). Nailing the EVs exactly is not the goal (and is hard to do), but a simple model can tell us a lot about how EV changes when circumstances change.

Error cancellation is our friend when modeling. All models have errors in them. If all our calculations have the same error (e.g. ignoring implied odds), we can compare differences in results without losing much accuracy. As long as we know where the errors are, we can always expand on the model later.

Good modeling is about controlling errors, not eliminating all of them (because then we would not be modeling, but solving exactly, which is infeasible for hard problems).

If you want to pinpoint the absolute EV values exactly, feel free to go bananas with assumptions and math. :-) Actually, we could do it quite easily with PokerJuice, I think, but it would be somewhat tedious to keep track of all the EV contributions.


superT 10 years, 3 months ago
I might have misunderstood you earlier. If the question you're looking to answer is roughly "if we decide to call/shove, do we want more or less people in the pot?", and we're comparing the EVs of the same action with different amounts of players in the pot, I have no objections. In this case I agree that the errors at every step are roughly similar and that the results should be useful despite the simplifications.

However, I did get the feeling that you were also comparing EV(call) to EV(jam). I don't agree the model is very meaningful for that, as the errors in each of those figures are definitely not similar. EV(jam) should be pretty much spot on, whereas for calling the model effectively assumes that the stacks are ~70bb shallower, which is obviously a major difference at reasonable stack depths. A quick look at the HU case for example suggests that in reality we have to make quite a few of very close folds/BE-ish calls OTT (assuming villain always jams turn), whereas in the model we can't be forced out of the pot/never have to put in more money behind. I think ignoring this is too big of a simplification for the results to be realistic/comparable.

Again, if I got the idea of your post wrong, my bad and sorry for the ramble :)

- superT
ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

superT:

1) We can compare EV (call) for various players (same assumptions/errors in all numbers)
2) We can compare EV (jam) for various players (same assumptions/errors in all numbers)


Then, since EV (call) is underestimated (ignoring implied odds, and assuming we play turn accurately) we can compare EV (call) and EV (jam) in the sense that we can say calling has to be better than jamming, regardless of number of opponents. The underestimated EV (call) is higher than EV (jam) for any number of opponents in our model, so a more accurate EV (call) will also be. 


superT 10 years, 3 months ago

Yes, but what I'm disagreeing with here is that EV(call) is necessarily underestimated. I'm not saying it's obviously overestimated either, but having money left to play after calling doesn't only work in our favor via implied odds. It can also benefit villain by allowing him to push us off of decent equity OTT, especially when it goes HU (or get another valuebet in when we have to call it off with low but adequate equity). There's something like 20 turn cards where we have equity in the 21-31% range which we might be forced to fold esp if we were still a bit deeper so villain could bet full pot OTT ("might" because the sidepot could make the better ones still a call). Obviously calling pot OTF to fold say 30% equity OTT is worse than just calling the flop pot bet and realising full equity without further betting. At least to me it's not clear how these effects sum up.

That said, this is mostly nitpicking the model. In reality I can easily see calling being the best here (even though I said fold earlier, dunno, I'm a nit) since according to your numbers it's at least unlikely to be terrible, and BTN seems like a weaker player based on his stack so he could do something funny to gamble in a big pot. In that sense I agree that calling is undervalued in the model and tbh the spazz/mistake factor might easily be the most important variable here and def works in our favor.

ZenFish 10 years, 3 months ago

I made the assumption that we play turns accurately. If we do, calling flop with chips behind for turn is always better than jamming flop as an underdog. Because dodging bad turn cards is like jamming, but getting money back on the worst turns.

Now, our ability to play turns accurately is not necessarily a solid assumption. But we have to trust ourselves. :-) 


Be the first to add a comment

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy