Blinds battle

I guess it's standard as played.

Although I heard something of 2,5x would be a good 4bet size. So I would have raised to $1.75. I suppose it's no real difference but I don't know.

Depends a bit on villain but vs unknown on blind vs blind I think it is ok to shove AKo.

I would just call his 3 bet. It´s probably coinflip, but coinflip is not profitable in a long run, right? Especially when I have no info on villain I´m just calling, because I think it´s too risky to shove there.

Originally posted by Mozzek
I would just call his 3 bet. It´s probably coinflip, but coinflip is not profitable in a long run, right? Especially when I have no info on villain I´m just calling, because I think it´s too risky to shove there.

Very interesting insight. Does anyone have more info if the coinflip is not profitable / profitable in a long run?

Coinflip is not profitable on the long run because you pay rake. If you would not pay rake and you win the hand 50% of the times it will be exactly break even but since you do pay rake every time, you are losing money.

Originally posted by 599ALG

Originally posted by Mozzek
I would just call his 3 bet. It´s probably coinflip, but coinflip is not profitable in a long run, right? Especially when I have no info on villain I´m just calling, because I think it´s too risky to shove there.

Very interesting insight. Does anyone have more info if the coinflip is not profitable / profitable in a long run?

Well, it shouldn´t be profitable imo. The odds are 50:50, aren´t they? And then there is the rake :).

Originally posted by Mozzek

Originally posted by 599ALG

Originally posted by Mozzek
I would just call his 3 bet. It´s probably coinflip, but coinflip is not profitable in a long run, right? Especially when I have no info on villain I´m just calling, because I think it´s too risky to shove there.

Very interesting insight. Does anyone have more info if the coinflip is not profitable / profitable in a long run?

Well, it shouldn´t be profitable imo. The odds are 50:50, aren´t they? And then there is the rake :).

You have already invested $2 in to the pot and villain 5bets to $5.

In this hand:

EV of folding = -$2

EV of shove when villain calls all-in (vs TT+,AK AK has 40% eq):

= ($20*0,40)-$10= -$2.

In conclusion EV of shoving is about the same as EV of folding in this spot with this sizing.

But lets say that villain will fold 10% of his hands to a shove so you gain additional 10% fold equity:

EV of shoving:

($20*0,40)-10$ + (0,10*7$) = -1,3$

Then shoving becomes better than folding.

So shoving has about the same or higher ev than folding. What about calling?

You would be calling 50% of your stack. What are you going to do on flops that does not have A or K? You have to fold most likely and villain will most likely be cbetting all in on almost any flop.

Chance of hitting your pair is 32%.

So you will call half of your stack and fold (1-0,32) = 68% of flops! That is not a winning play:

EV of calling and stacking off when you hit a pair: (0,32*20)-10 = -3,6 --> 0,32* -3,6 + 0,68*-5 = -4,55$

In conclusion;

EV of folding your hand: -2$

EV of shoving all-in pre: worst case: -$2, can get higher if we have fold eq even to $0 or even positive ev.

EV of calling preflop and stacking when we hit: $-4,55

= Shoving all-in pre has the highest EV so shoving all-in is the best play, but we don't expect to make much profit with it.

Hope that this helped some one out there.

I think your calculation for EV of calling is wrong : "You would be calling 50% of your stack" ==> he only need to call 0.5$ because we call the 3bet here (against 5bet it's either push or fold in any situation -unless both really deep- imo).

Originally posted by piR
I think your calculation for EV of calling is wrong : "You would be calling 50% of your stack" ==> he only need to call 0.5$ because we call the 3bet here (against 5bet it's either push or fold in any situation -unless both really deep- imo).

It's calculated for call the 5b and you are right - it is push or fold as you can see the EV of call is horrible.

My brain is not working but I would say those formulas are wrong. First of all the EV of fold is always 0. The money in the pot is not ours anymore and we don't lose it if we fold. EV of shove with 40% equity and 0 FE is +2.8$ according to my calculator.

If you 4-bet, you simply don't fold (you move in, thus nullifying positional disadvantage) because you have 20% of the stack in there (meaning you get a "discount").

Originally posted by la55i
My brain is not working but I would say those formulas are wrong. First of all the EV of fold is always 0. The money in the pot is not ours anymore and we don't lose it if we fold. EV of shove with 40% equity and 0 FE is +2.8$ according to my calculator.

Yes there is 2 ways for calculating ev, I use the method where I compare the EV to the starting stack of the hand. This is not so commonly used method. Your calculator uses different way to calculate.

This method that I use to calculate is presented in the Will Tiptons book.

But still the result should be same. Shoving with 40% equity is +EV.

Originally posted by la55i
But still the result should be same. Shoving with 40% equity is +EV.

Originally posted by la55i
Coinflip is not profitable on the long run because you pay rake. If you would not pay rake and you win the hand 50% of the times it will be exactly break even but since you do pay rake every time, you are losing money.

How do you then say that getting stacks in as 50% is brake even or losing and getting stacks in with 40% equity is +ev?

Shoving with 40% eq is +ev if we have fold eq.

Because I assumed the first question about coinflips was hypothetical and about situations where we just insta shove and have exactly 50%. In that case you would risk 100 to win 100. Now we have already invested 2$ which is not our money but it is on the pot.

Actually I used a wrong number here. So the real answer is that it is very slightly -EV. Villain has to fold 3% to get it break even.