Übertight fold

call down.

I agree with Avataren: call him down.. ♠_biggrin:

Why?

unless I have a solid read that they dont bet here enough worse hands than trips+ this is a calldown for me

Which ranges (after the BU turn call) would you use for MP and BU to motivate the call (given my read that BU is a fish that never raises and the MP is no maniac postflop)?

Edit: I have forgotten one simple thing. To see showdown, It probably costs two BB. My calculations indicating a (close but clear) fold was based on a 1 BB investment only. The fold is a no-brainer.

Originally posted by kidzoltan
I agree with Avataren: call him down.. ♠_biggrin:

kind of funny to get some nl players to our Fixed Limit boards. Maybe out of curiosity ? or the good old you didn't knew it was FL ♦ ?

only spewmonkeys in NL, FL is solid

Originally posted by Tomaloc
only spewmonkeys in NL, FL is solid

then you obviously are a horrible poker player ♦

well I dont know what MP2 can have, but what I would bet is something like this, and I am no maniac either

QQ+,A7s+,J9s+,T9s,98s,A9o+

Yes, that's what you would bet, but that's was not the question. What is MP (no postflop maniac) betting here? He has 42% opens. What is the fish (that never raises) calling with?

On the turn you get slightly worse than 4:1 to call both turn and river. Easy fold. Try anything reasonable compatible with my reads in Equilab. The Equity is something like 11%, and that is optimistic.

The effect of having two players in, (both with all A in their range), combined with the double flush draws on the board crushes us completely.

Edit: If the MP is a good player, he should cut down on his bluffing a lot. For instance, 20% fold equity versus each player separately results in 4% fold equity versus the two of them (using the simplifying assumption that they call independently of each other).

You contradict yourself because you say that MP2 has almost no fold equity and on the other hand you say that BU can have the nuts only and basically you can only have a near nut hand or a flushdraw because you fold the best pair you can have. That means you still fold a lot.
If the other players fold only 20% MP2 shouldnt bluff at all. You and the BU need to fold ~42% to make him indifferent on bluffing.With this you fold around 55-60% depending on your defending and flop xr-ing range.

Originally posted by kavboj84
You contradict yourself because you say that MP2 has almost no fold equity and on the other hand you say that BU can have the nuts only and basically you can only have a near nut hand or a flushdraw because you fold the best pair you can have. That means you still fold a lot.
If the other players fold only 20% MP2 shouldnt bluff at all. You and the BU need to fold ~42% to make him indifferent on bluffing.With this you fold around 55-60% depending on your defending and flop xr-ing range.

Where do I say that MP has no fold equity?
I observed that there is a multiplicative effect in multiway pots when it comes to probabilities of your opponents folding, so he should bluff little. I still let him bluff any sensible holding (all draws = 40% bluffs = overbluffing) to create the best case scenario for us.

Where do I say that BU has the nuts only?
The range I gave the fish is all Ax, All pairs, All draws. This is the very least nutty range imaginable. I even took away true nuts, like full houses from the fish range. Again, this is the best case scenario for us.

What I fold depends 100% of what I hold and my opponents ranges. This is multiway with two players playing far from GTO so screw balancing completely. Thinking in terms of "I should fold X% of my range here" is just silly.

Here is the result from Equilab where I let the MP bluff anything remotely possible for a sane postflop player. He doesn't fire any pairs except those with a flush draw to go with it. The fish folds nothing on the flop and calls all pairs and better + all flush draws and all straight draws on turn.

Note: Now the MP is bluffing a shitload more than in my original estimate.

Board: A♦Q♦A♥ K♥
       Equity     Win     Tie
MP3    65.48%  58.64%   6.84% { QQ+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, Kd9d, Qh9h, Jd9d, Jh9h, Td9d, Th9h, Kd8d, Qh8h, Jd8d, Jh8h, Td8d, Th8h, 9d8d, 9h8h, Kd7d, Qh7h, Jd7d, Jh7h, Td7d, Th7h, 9d7d, 9h7h, 8d7d, 8h7h, Kd6d, Qh6h, Jd6d, Jh6h, Kd5d, Qh5h, Kd4d, Qh4h, Kd3d, Qh3h, Kd2d, Qh2h, A2o+, KJo-KTo, JTo }
BU     22.20%  17.05%   5.15% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, 87s, JdTd, JhTh, Jd9d, Jh9h, Td9d, Th9h, Jd8d, Jh8h, Td8d, Th8h, 9d8d, 9h8h, Jd7d, Jh7h, Td7d, Th7h, 9d7d, 9h7h, Jd6d, Jh6h, Td6d, Th6h, 9d6d, 9h6h, 8d6d, 8h6h, 7d6d, 7h6h, Jd5d, Jh5h, Td5d, Th5h, 9d5d, 9h5h, 8d5d, 8h5h, 7d5d, 7h5h, 6d5d, 6h5h, Jd4d, Jh4h, Td4d, Th4h, 7d4d, 7h4h, 6d4d, 6h4h, 5d4d, 5h4h, Jd3d, Jh3h, Td3d, Th3h, Jd2d, Jh2h, A2o+, K2o+, Q5o+, JTo }
BB     12.32%   6.88%   5.44% { KcQh }

With this super-optimistic range estimate, as you can see, your equity is 12.32%. This is barely enough to call one bet. You need to call two - and hope the MP continuous his overbluffing streak on a blank with 100% of his range.

I don't think you can win this discussion kav.

For comparison, I added more MP bluffs and BU floats until the required equity for calldown was reached:

Board: A♦Q♦A♥ K♥
       Equity     Win     Tie
MP3    59.73%  53.74%   5.98% { 88+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, Kd9d, Qh9h, Jd9d, Jh9h, Td9d, Th9h, Kd8d, Qh8h, Jd8d, Jh8h, Td8d, Th8h, 9d8d, 9h8h, Kd7d, Qh7h, Jd7d, Jh7h, Td7d, Th7h, 9d7d, 9h7h, 8d7d, 8h7h, Kd6d, Qh6h, Jd6d, Jh6h, Kd5d, Qh5h, Kd4d, Qh4h, Kd3d, Qh3h, Kd2d, Qh2h, A2o+, KJo-KTo, JTo }
BU     20.21%  15.55%   4.66% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, 87s, JdTd, JhTh, Jd9d, Jh9h, Td9d, Th9h, Jd8d, Jh8h, Td8d, Th8h, 9d8d, 9h8h, Jd7d, Jh7h, Td7d, Th7h, 9d7d, 9h7h, Jd6d, Jh6h, Td6d, Th6h, 9d6d, 9h6h, 8d6d, 8h6h, 7d6d, 7h6h, Jd5d, Jh5h, Td5d, Th5h, 9d5d, 9h5h, 8d5d, 8h5h, 7d5d, 7h5h, 6d5d, 6h5h, Jd4d, Jh4h, Td4d, Th4h, 7d4d, 7h4h, 6d4d, 6h4h, 5d4d, 5h4h, Jd3d, Jh3h, Td3d, Th3h, Jd2d, Jh2h, A2o+, K2o+, Q2o+, J5o+, T7o+ }
BB     20.07%  14.10%   5.97% { KcQh }

MP is now also bluffing with a bunch of pocket pairs, and the BU is calling with total air that picks up a gutshot on turn (like J5o).

Well I think this is rather the result of the screwed bluff range you assign to MP. I dont know how you got to this range, but its really badly designed IMO, it is shifted way too much towards flushdraws. Ive only changed it in a few places(added 14 combos) and suddenly you have 18% equity which should be enough for a call.

QQ+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,J7s+,T7s+,Kd9d,Qh9h,Kd8d,Qh8h,9d8d,9h8h,
Kd7d,Qh7h,9d7d,9h7h,8d7d,8h7h,Kd6d,Qh6h,Jd6d,Jh6h,Kd5d,Qh5h,Kd4d,Qh4h,Kd3d,Qh3h,Kd2d,Qh2h,A2o+,KJo-KTo,JTo

I usually dont assume too much from an opponent on whom I have only a few hundred hands only I just concentrate on my own ranges and try to play balanced. And I think this would be an overfold which I dont make without solid reads(i.e. hours of background analysis)

No, you need 20% for a call, because you need to call twice.

What makes you think bluffing trash with no outs is better than betting trash with outs? What makes you think 50% bluffs is good on this layout versus two opponents? (Check it out in the Pie chart. You have 118 bluffs, 107 value hands and 29 two pair hands that could be both bluff and value.)

You don't get the point. I am not designing a good bluff range for MP. I am designing a huge bluff range for him to demonstrate to you how clear the fold is.

What is the range for the fish then? Trying your range above I see that you don't let the fish fold anything on the turn. A bit optimistic, right?

See now? You let the fish proceed with everything, including things like 5♣4 and 9♠7♣. You let the MP bluff 50%. You still don't get enough equity to call..

/**************/

I knew when I posted the hand that mostly everyone would say it is a clear calldown. I thought so in the past as well. Experience has taught me that this spot isn't good, so this time I folded and promptly decided to check this out in detail.

I am surprised by the results too. It is an extremely clear fold.

But, I didn't count on that people wouldn't at least acknowledge what the numbers say. In spite of MP bluffing 50% and the fish now never folding anything on the turn, you kav need reads and hours of analysis to fold. Put it this way, if you are up against a good tag and a postflop tight fish, then your equity is well below 10%, maybe 5%.

Focusing on your own range only is a leak and is a disaster multiway. Your range means close to nothing here. But, from experience, I know that it is impossible to convince you about anything. You usually require proof, but when presented with proof, you never acknowledge it. You need to find out yourself.

Nah that would mean you call down every time vs these ranges, but you are not a robot and can intelligently decide when you want to call 1 and when 2. Even if I assume that with the slightly modified ranges MP bets the river and BU calls down you have to put 2 into 8.7 and thats 18.6%. But you can do better than that, for example providing these ranges you can fold on every 3 flush river and you call only 1 then. On a blank river you can call 2 and make an extra profit with MP overbluffing. Also if BU has something he will most likely come forth with it on the turn and then you can fold to a raise easily.
See its not that you invest 2 all the time, its rather that you invest between 1 and 2 on average, say 1.5, its hard to tell how much exactly because it depends on how they play. But since I dont have information on them, I only look my own ranges, and concentrate on not making mistakes, such as overfolding.

I am not designing a good bluff range for MP. I am designing a huge bluff range for him to demonstrate to you how clear the fold is.

With this you only demonstrate that you can fold vs a badly designed range. The point is: you didnt come up with a real evidence that would suggest that you play against a range like that. All you have is a suspicion based on who knows what.
But if you want you can play like that its your business, you wanted to hear my opinion and that would be it.

@kav
You get things completely wrong (is this on purpose?). This is quite frustrating for me because it isn't the first time. You say I have no information on how they play. Yes, I do. I'll repeat it again for clarity. The MP opens 43%. He is no maniac postflop. The fish calls 61%. He never raises, and is a tight fish postflop (and never raises!). (See post one). These numbers are based on ca 100 hands and observation. It is plenty enough.

Seriously, do you really estimate the MP to bluff more than 50% in this spot MP? Is that a good bluffing range?

Seriously, do you think a call is profitable versus a small well designed bluffing range when it is unprofitable versus a huge badly constructed bluffing range?

Seriously, do you think a postflop tight fish is calling turn with totally nothing?

As a parenthesis, yes, if they play like that you need to pay 2 BB, no less to see showdown because then the MP is a maniac.

Read on.

/**/

An experiment of thought: I put myself in MP, and I put a player that plays GTO in the BB designed for heads-up. The fish stays the way he is. Do you know how much I'd be double barrel bluffing on this board? Close to nothing.

/**/
As for me only demonstrating how calling versus a badly constructed huge bluffing range is donating money doesn't demonstrate that calling versus a good bluffing range is bad;

In a normal situation with me in the MP, i.e with no reads on BB and the present reads on the fish on the button, I'd double barrel bluff <10%. It is 3-ways and the board is horrible for bluffing. It's a A♦A♥Q♦K♥ board goddamit. This gives the guy in the BB some 2% equity if he holds KQ. If he overcalls the fish, now calling with all pairs and straight/flush draws, he'd be getting 1.41% equity holding KQ.

Yes, that's right, you have around 2% equity in the pot versus a tight competent player in the MP. (Yes, I count myself as a tight competent player as 5c/Tc.) This should demonstrate to you what a best case scenario is. The better the MP, the worse calling gets.

sorry Yohan I dont have time now to reply in detail, but the two main thing you dont understand is :

1. A wide bluff range with a lot of combos doesnt imply a lot of bluffs. If you bluff with too much equity your opponent can still overfold because you range will be simply too strong by containing too much equity. Nay a good bluff range is as compact as possible IMO

2. A few hundred hands are not enough to make solid reads, unless your opponent is really bad.

Originally posted by kavboj84
sorry Yohan I dont have time now to reply in detail, but the two main thing you dont understand is :

1. A wide bluff range with a lot of combos doesnt imply a lot of bluffs. If you bluff with too much equity your opponent can still overfold because you range will be simply too strong by containing too much equity. Nay a good bluff range is as compact as possible IMO

2. A few hundred hands are not enough to make solid reads, unless your opponent is really bad.

@kav: Read this carefully please, and try to understand what I mean. It isn't rocket science, it is easy, it is close to trivial. The main point to understand is what is meant by a best case scenario.

Your logic is skewed. Nobody likes to be to that, but you need to be told. I have presented a best case scenario. You also gave an example of a scenario that was even more than best case. You turned the MP into a maniac and the fish into a 100% calling station in your example. You still didn't get enough equity to warrant a call.

As for your points:

1. A wide bluffing range by definition implies a lot of bluffs. Else it wouldn't be a wide bluffing range. Do you see how skewed your logic is, or are you kidding? I hope the latter. The best hands to bluff are those with good equity and horrible showdown value. Bluffing total trash is almost always overbluffing.
2. For these stats (VPIP/PFR and limp) , it is totally adequate with 100 hands. The numbers may be off a little, sure. The real PFR of MP may be 40% or 48%. This is still very reliable. Likewise for the fish. The chance that the read is off exists, but in poker you have to go with what you have.

If you change the characteristics of these players to playing better (meaning tighter and less bluffs), then things get worse for you. I find it almost impossible that you do not see this. Also, I gave an example where MP double barrel bluffs <10%, which is very reasonable 3-ways on that board. The equity for KQ turned out to be 2%.

Now, the main point, something else that you get backwards. My conclusion (fold) does not rely the reads. If you a reasonable player in the MP, and a preflop tighter fish on the button, then things get worse for you. It is this that is meant by "best case scenario" in my posts. So, yes, I have proved that you don't have the equity to call.

/********/

My advice to you (that you didn't ask for) is that you don't respond to this right now because you need to think it through. It isn't the first time that you are impossible to convince about the obvious. Your logic is flawed. But you need to find that out yourself.

Edit: An offer:
If you want to get right, present ranges where MP (43% PFR with all A in range) value bets all trip A+, bluffs <20% and the fish (61% limp) actually folds hopeless hands (he is not allowed to fold A+) on the turn. (Everything without a A count as a bluff.) I'll promptly transfer $50 to you on Stars to you if you can find such a range with better equity that 18% for KQ. (Note that bluffing 20% 3-ways is still way too much on this board :))