Concept value checking even when semibluffing shows big profit with no SD value?
Posted by MorePower
Posted by
MorePower
posted in
High Stakes
Concept value checking even when semibluffing shows big profit with no SD value?
Going through same hands I found some interesting spots and I made up a hand history.
I was inspired from the video "Value Bluffing" from Daniel Dvoress http://www.runitonce.com/pro-training/videos/value-bluffing-part-1/
I think I got an example where its the other way around where valuechecking is the way to go even though my standard was to get it all in all the time before.
I hope you all are able to deal with the PJ replayer, interesting is only the turn play. The hand original was 3 handed but the BU sat out so hero is ip in the BB.
http://hh.pokerjuice.com/hh/ZGtHOvrh1D
I did some calculations with some ranges I gave villain and I end up with 45% EQ on the turn.
To make a shove profitable the BE Point is a foldequity of 39%. I used the semi bluff modul and let villain go broke with all his straights and fold all non straights which is a simplification.
Given that he only calls all in 35% and the EV for that is 103,33$. But I still ask myself if this is the best play even though hero has no SD-value and Villain is folding close to 2/3 of the time.
First Point is that hero's EQ vs villain's whole range is 45% which gives him an EQ share of 110,24$ from the Pot what is already higher then the EV of shoving. Difference ist, there is still 1 street to play so both players may not be able to realize their EQ and there are some implied and reverse implied odds.
That leads to the second point that I think playing one more street should work in heros favour because his hand has good visibility on rivers and probably way more implied odds than reverse implied odds. This should increase the EV of checking way more than decrease by getting blufft sometimes or call with worse hands on the River in my opinion.
So it could well be that even the EV of shoving is bigger than our EQ share of the pot checking is the way to go for the reasons above mentioned.
With slight changes on hero's holding even with an EQ edge vs villains Range, the EV of shoving this draw is worse than the EQ share of the Pot: http://hh.pokerjuice.com/hh/ZOvdqohSZk
I have some more thoughts on going even further with that but I would like to hear your opinion on that concept first.
Loading 9 Comments...
Funny I just went thru some of my marked hands where I realized in the past i wouldve just taken the profitable semi bluff shov but then now i realized that in a lot of spots my share of the pot was about the same as the ev of the pot.
Very interesting thread, will check it out later when i have pj in front of me
Interesting post but am I the only one who gets blank pages powered by poker juice when I click the links?
sometimes it takes a while til it loads from the server i guess
so, i wanna keep this thread alive...if for no other reason, then at least so we can figure out how to interpret the eq share feature and how much we should read into it.
would you interpret this as a snap check back since the EV of a shove is much lower than our eq share in the pot?ignoring future reverse implied ofc.
maybe you can upload the PKJ file that I can experiment with the hand a little bit :-)
I guess its a 4bet Pot and I think it looks like it even though Turns and River get hard to play. Looks like this always comes up when Hero helds a marginal holding (w or w/ draw) and villains range is very wide but on boards where our EQ differs from very bad (sets,straights) too very good against some of his low rd's.
On this special flop we kinda do ok even against a get it in range because of his draws like AKJ or KJ:(Q,T,8).
If we take a board like KQ9, the EV should differ even more between our EQ share and the shove EV.
Do you know how to remove nicks in PJ? Dont wanna out any1....
right click at the table and check mark "use positions"
cool, thx! here it is:
http://hh.pokerjuice.com/hh/QXEZLKurPK
Be the first to add a comment