OESD annoying shove/call/fold decision OTF

Why do you check the flop?
As played you can definitely call it on the flop. You have enough equity.

Pot equity you calculated correctly but I believe you miscalculated that shove. When you are the one betting it is bet/(bet+pot) but the villains bet is not in that pot. So when you bet 2.26$ on a pot of 0.79$ you will have to win that hand 74.10%.

With this move, if we assume you have 30% equity, villain must fold 50% vs your shove to make that break even.

We can x flop. We have outs to call flop.

I´m also for calling the flop.

Originally posted by la55i
Why do you check the flop?
As played you can definitely call it on the flop. You have enough equity.

Pot equity you calculated correctly but I believe you miscalculated that shove. When you are the one betting it is bet/(bet+pot) but the villains bet is not in that pot. So when you bet 2.26$ on a pot of 0.79$ you will have to win that hand 74.10%.

With this move, if we assume you have 30% equity, villain must fold 50% vs your shove to make that break even.

Why did I check the flop? I am following the value town strategy and I didn't want to bet at NL2 without yet having a real hand or at least some kind of a made hand. They fold so little here.

I guess my main question is this:
When do you base your decision on the equity calculations vs pot odds / odds calculations?
Required equity here is 29% and I believe I have around 35% here = that is equal to a call.

And when do you base your decision on the pot odds / odds calculation?
Pot odds: 0,33 / 0,79 = 1 : 2,4
OESD odds: one street 5:1
1:2,4 < 1:5 = fold in this situation.

I am not sure if I am clearly missing something here mathematically or in some other way or form but I don't understand when the decisions should be made on equity calculations and when on pot odds/odds calculations because depending on which calculations we do we get a correct call and a correct fold at the same time. So how do we pick?

What would be your advice?

Originally posted by Mozzek
I´m also for calling the flop.

What would be a mathematical ground for that?

Originally posted by nitrol
We can x flop. We have outs to call flop.

How would you apply mathematics here? Required equity/equity VS pot odds / odds.

You should definitely not be 3-betting speculative hands (or 3-bet bluff) from the blinds in the first place. (What do you expect? Hitting nuts?) In order to do that you need top be able to play well postflop. As played, there are too many errors of thought to reply to in a single post. But I can at least say that playing loosey-goosey on the cheap rounds (preflop and flop) is perfectly okay. Betting draws is also perfectly okay. It is called semi-bluffing (and you get to set the price, and you keep initiative which is of paramount importance whether you hit or want to bluff turn if you think that is profitable).

Honestly, what I found out recently is that following strategies is good, but I also need to play by my "feelings" (instincts, maybe those are wrong words, but I don´t know how to call it) - simply not just to rely on strategies. Reasonable explanaiton for the flop cbet would be: you have the action, you seem super strong as you 3 bet - some FE, by checking you give a sign of weakness. So betting 1/2 of the pot would be cool and solve a lot of our worries.

I think it's pretty good that OP 3bets this hand preflop. This will be of utter importance on higher limits and just prepares him. Also by posting hands like these he can learn a lot.

To the hand now:

Postflop, you have a strong draw with 8 outs. And I would definitely cbet here. You may get some Ax and lower pocket pairs to fold, and you also set the price. Half pot is definitely enough here to get stacks in when you hit.

What would you do if he raises your flop cbet? You do not have enough equity to call profittably and I do not like throwing this draw.
And you do not have 8 outs but 6 clear outs as 2 outs complete the flush.

And that is nitrol's standard reply (and a weakness in his game I have seen many a times). Scared to death of losing 30% equity in a small pot. That overshadows all? (Also, getting raised is not the end of the world. It becomes a matter of odds and outs, and implied odds are still there.)

All plays EXCEPT the one in OP are okay. Bet flop, check-call flop, check-raise flop. Mix it up as you wish. Great for unpredictability and unexploitability. At higher stakes (and against your regular regs at any stake) it is important to have a check-raising range. So I'd prefer check-raising before check-calling this particular hand. After all, if you check, most opponents automatically bet and, incidentally, they make you really pay to draw - perhaps even price you out entirely (you'd again end up folding your precious 30% equity). By contrast, if you bet, you set the price and a raise is not to be expected 93% of the time as you seem to think. Calls and folds are much, much more likely. You retain initiative and getting payed off (or two-barrel bluff if you should so choose) is just so much easier. The check-raise (this time) is preferred before check-calling because it helps keeping opponents in line. Not all check-raises should be with nuts you know. Opponents are less likely to automatically steal or price you out when you check in the future.

Playing draws passively works a lot better in position.

That said, I prefer betting most.

Well, we are talking nl2 here. I will play it different on high stakes.