PLO50 CRAI multiway
Posted by Andreas Fröhli
Posted by
Andreas Fröhli
posted in
Low Stakes
PLO50 CRAI multiway
Hi again
http://weaktight.com/5772417
After going through equities, ranges I assume that my play was EV neutral (1-2%+-)
My assumptions for the hand
-UTG here never has good AA**
-UTG will not be foolish enough to bet bad AA into so many people multiway
-->UTG does not have AA**
-the BTN could have AA**, but only bad ones as well
-the BTN's calling range usually is a draw +pair hand, which he will fold to a check-raise (because UTG is getting it in)
-->I do not worry about BTN at all. He's never getting it in here unless UTG folds as he's too deep with UTG and would definitely raise OTF with a strong hand like a set!
Back to UTG:
I need 40% to stack off here. My assumptions~~
-50% he has 9T** here, given that he protects his hand with leading multiway
-5% he has TT/99** here (he raised UTG, so there are only double pairs without AA left, rare)
-45% he has either QQJx/JT87
If I am right about him donking QQJ* here, my equity should be above 40%. He did not 4bet, so his range is kind of capped somewhere...
board: 9h3sTd
44% versus:
QQJT,T987,QJT9,TJ99,JJTQ,QQTT,QQ99, AJT9, AT98
Further stats on villain:
-Reg
-He does NOT have a c/raising range (he leads everything OR check-folds)
-21/17/6/AF 4.0
-EP Preflop raise: 6% (!)
Results: posted later.
Loading 12 Comments...
Fold pre.
Yup. I'm not calling pre here often either with the action returning to the original raiser.
True, still doesnt help me much for a postflop scenario that comes up from time to time (overpair+weak OESD vs made hands).
I stopped calling ooP vs strong UTGranges +backclick3bets ... but that's another story.
Against a bet and a call on the flop... you still have an easy fold.
I cant' believe it's a snapfold unless you change the range I gave to the UTG donkbet. (I'm 100% sure that he either goes with his hand, or mucks it - either of these players will fold, I'm not going 3way). Do you think this way because you expect BOTH to call some of the time???
What about if I encounter this postflop scenario with KKJ8 next time. Then I'm always shoving and it's not even close right?
I more wanted to start a discussion about the combined equity of an overpair with a draw that's not always to the nuts... (If some people have better examples)
You're over thinking it imo. UTG most likely has a made hand like T9, or a draw of similar strength. BN probably has as draw, either QJx or 78x. Just doing the super simple thing of calculating your equity against T9 and QJ gives you ~26% equity. Not enough.
In your example it looks like you have calculated your equity in a 2-way pot. Do you really expect one of them to fold every time, or is that a mistake in your assumptions? 3-way equity is very different than 2-way.
Btw, this would be marginal at best even 2-way.
it is marginal, I except it to go 2way 100%, that's why I'm asking in the first place...(it's going 2-way because of their stack sizes, BN is never overcalling a reshove)
Definitely fold. Against the following range of UTG-worthy hands that can ship here we have 34%, and this is probably being a bit generous:
(TT:88+, AxTT$R:xx, AT9$ds, 99:88+, T9$R$R$ds, QQJ$R, QQJ$ds, QJJ$R$ss, QJJ$R$ds, KKJT, KKQT, KKQJ, T9$M$M$np$ds, T9$M$R$ds, T9$R$R$ds, (QJ89, QJT9, QJT7, QJT8, JT98, T987, T986)$ds, (QJ89, QJT9, QJT7, QJT8, JT98, T987, T986)$ss)$nt
Thanks, was looking for such an explanation.
TT:88+ means doubled paired TT's with 88's +?
Have to gets used to the syntax to use it myself in the future too..
Yes, I believe so. At least I don't get an error message when I type that. Typing TT88+ without the ":" should be all one-gapped double pairs up to AAQQ which isn't what we want.
So it turns out my syntax was wrong. "TT:88+" is incorrect. It should actually be: "TT$tp:(J+,8,9)". This changes your EV considerably, making your shove correct if we go by your read that BTN is folding (I tend to agree).
The correct syntax gives us 44% equity after I add some weaker AA combos he might flat (46% without those). I'm extremely surprised as I thought this was a clear fold, and I also find it really funny that after all that work I get the same equity in your original post. Even though he opens roughly 6% UTG, there are still very premium QQ and JJ combos that should be within his range and ones that can bet-call here which really helps us.
Board - 9hTd3s
PLAYER_1 44.3797% Kd8h7cKc
PLAYER_2 55.6203% (AAT3, AA33, AAJ8, AA78, TT$tp:(J+,8,9), 99$tp:(T+,8), AxTT$R:xx, AT9$ds, T9$R$R$ds, QQJ$R, QQJ$ds, QJJ$R$ss, QJJ$R$ds, KKJT, KKQT, KKQJ, T9$M$M$np$ds, T9$M$R$ds, T9$R$R$ds, (QJ89, QJT9, QJT7, QJT8, JT98, T987, T986)$ds, (QJ89, QJT9, QJT7, QJT8, JT98, T987, T986)$ss)$nt
1399740 trials (exhaustive)
Interesting, I thought that because I've left out a lot of double-suitedness, my calculations were wrong (2x Bd-FD possibility). After reading all comments I came to terms that my play way about a break-even decision in this particular hand (but shouldn't be played the same in other spots). I will probably choose an overpair with an OESD that is stronger next time.
The last 10k hands have really annoyed me as I've been trying to play overly correct and fold in a lot of spots where I "could be beat". I got really destroyed and after loosing up a bittle (and still making some decent folds) it got better.
Even though a lot of people tend to disagree on this (on PLO25/50) I think that people give me the action I give them and recognize when I played too tight. As soon as I became a nit, I didn't get any stupid action anymore ...
Be the first to add a comment