In real-time, I also felt like 65 wasn't shoving the river: I agree. So I do discount that from their range somewhat.

Last to act, villain can stab wide here (and re: relative position, I was PFR so the other players had their chance to put money in; their ranges are weak). I'm not yet convinced we need to fold. I'm listening, though, and it's obviously only marginally +EV if it's +EV at all.

i dont think it is a mistake to fold the flop.

a shove with a bare flushdraw ott makes absolutely no sense, that gettin in big money at bad shape most of the time. he won't call worse hands cause he has none to do so bc we have nothing lol. and once a player bet he tends to not fold

dont be biased by raw equity, you won't realize 36% so you actually dont have the odds to call against the range u give him here (he may be wider though)

God_of_War But you have to quantify that somehow to say we don't have the right odds. Even against a PSB, we mathematically have a correct call if the hand ends immediately.

Future streets matter, but I'm not going to be convinced by vague equity realization fears when we have more than 36% equity versus a 3/4-pot bet.

BUT; the hand does not end here immediately. you cannot play hands in a manner that does not apply. I guess this is hard to quantify and needs a lot of parameters but as far as I can remember some guys quantified it to around 5% equity realization gap if the defender has a solid defending strategy.

God_of_War Honestly, this conversation isn't going anywhere at this rate. And I don't point this out in anger, but rather to point out that I can appeal to the one-street math of our EV and others can appeal to anxiety over our positional problems and we can go back and forth endlessly and nobody is going to get any closer to convincing anybody of their perspective unless we start strictly quantifying our perspectives on realizing our equity (or not).

Let me think through some turns we almost definitely fold on if villain pressures us...

Any non-spade 6 (3 unseen), 7 (2 unseen), 3 (2 unseen), or A (3 unseen) is pretty hard to continue on (10 unseen). We've seen 7 cards of 52 in the deck, so we fold on 10/45 turn cards. I've seen our quantified equity realization abbreviated elsewhere as "R", so let's use that and say that our R is therefore no higher than 35/45, or 78%.

If I did the math right, we need 29.4% ("realized") equity in order to call flop. 78% (our R) of our 36.48% (our equity vs range) is 28.45% and oh god why have I done all of this work to prove myself wrong.

It's not actually that simple, though, right? With future streets, we have implied odds against portions of villain's range and we can deny equity sometimes. For instance, I'd imagine there are a non-trivial number of 99+ combos that bet/fold turn as-played. (Also, in all fairness, I'm not being careful about rake here, which encourages us to fold as well.)

If we want to therefore call the flop call "questionable" (which is just true on its face: it's been questioned!), there's an argument for it. If we approximate R at 78%, we do have an immediately -EV call.

I did bristle at characterizing it as a "big mistake", though. It's not enormously spewy, and while there are scary things about future streets there are also profitable things about future streets.

Like when you check-raise turn and check river and villain jams with worse and you call and win a big pot, like I did in this hand. :)

(I don't remember what exactly they had and my main PC with the full HH is not available at the moment. I think it was something like Ac3c9s6s? Something surprisingly loose that I think may have been wider than the range I've stipulated in this thread.)

But now I'm being results-oriented, obv.

you also would have to fold to blanks nonspade 2, 4, and 5 which are another 9 cards. Now we have already half of the deck if you dont want to continue with a bare toppair against a player who first bet into 4players representing at least overpair and then make a second barrel against your call, which shows another amount of significant strength.

You will not have implied odds against sth. like a set when you can hit 2pair at best. You have REVERSE implied odds. The gutshot by itself will not do it, a backdoorflush also just countable as 1 out from flop.

I dont agree with koky's opinion that it is a big mistake but I am not sure neither, I personally would say it is marginal but okay when you are able to fold against further aggression or outplay the opponent somehow oop. or get a valuebet with top2pair.

why u think u r results-orientated? scared money? did not understand that..

God_of_War I'm being results-oriented because I called flop, turned well, and won a ton of big blinds after the flop call.

Keep in mind when calculating our R that villain is not always going to double barrel, and I think you're overestimating our reverse implied odds while underrating our implied odds and bluff outs.

Like, again this is somewhat results-oriented, but it turned out I had enormous implied odds on the runout that came. It would have been hard to quantify that from the flop, but implied odds should include catching bluffs on later streets.

okay. Im not skilled enough to give any further rly qualified comment here. But when it works practically it has legitimacy to play like this. theory vs empirical

How do you reconcile calling the flop call "a big mistake" with the PPT sim I posted above?

Yes, we don't always realize our equity. Yes, we're OOP with a very high SPR.

But you need to elaborate a lot more on your points to convince me.