(February 17, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Heywood Wrote:(February 17, 2015 at 12:16 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Absent a read on UTG, I don't like calling a limp reraise with AQo, but I assume your reason was sound, so ignore me on that minor critique.
Her limp check raise didn't scare me like it would if it came from another player....But at the time I am still putting her in the premium hand range in my head.
In big bet games in particular, this play screams "I have aces!!111!!!" - or at least they want you to think so. In limit, yeah, it usually means "I have a big hand and want to build a big pot.", in retrospect, clearly not the case here.
Be that as it may, I get thet the UTG player was sick of your shit, and was using this to play back at you, probably with something significantly less than aces.
(February 17, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: This is the hand I have chosen to do some off table work.....so let lets do some. I use equilab to do a lot of my off table work. If you don't know what equilab is watch this:
I'm not familiar with equilab in particular, but I am well versed in equity calculations in general
(February 17, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: UTG's Assumed Range: JJ+,AKs,AKo
My Range: AQo
Kid's Assumed Range: JJ-22,AQs-A2s,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AQo-A2o,K9o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T9o
I think your range on the kid might be greatly optimistic, unless you've got a read on him that he's going to cold call any reasonably playable hand (twice!, with a player left to act the first time). (By "reasonably playable", I of course do *not* mean "reasonably playable by a clued player". I mean "reasonably playable under some imagined circumstance other than this one.").
Meh. I agree he's probably got a wide range here nonetheless, and it probably doesn't skew the equity calc too much.
(February 17, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: UTG's Assumed Range: Plug those ranges into Equilab and it tells us:
UTG wins: 56.43%
I wins: 23.13%
Kid wins: 20.43%
When I am faced with the limp check raise I figure the kid will call behind me and close the action. Because I assume the kid will call behind me, I can figure I am getting 5.6 to 1 on the call. With those pot odds I need to win 15.15% of the time to break even. Since I win 23.13% of the time, it is a good call. If the kid folds, I am getting 4.6 to 1 on the call and need to win 17.86% of the time to break even and according to equilab I win 28.15% of the time if he folds still a good call.
The problem with this analysis is equilab assumes we always go to a showdown. In real life poker that is very often not the case.
True, equity calcs don't account for fold equity, but of course you're factoring the small amount of fold equity you have here when you bet the turn and river.
You've definitely got equity for a preflop call here, by the numbers, there's no disputing that, and I don't have a great deal of criticism for the hand as played.... Except for one thing...
If you're assuming UTG's preflop range for the limp-reraise is JJ+/AK (and that the kid on the button is essentially dead money), I'm not quite sure what kind of flop you're hoping to come here. You hit only an ace, you're killed by over half of UTG's range (AA, AK). You hit top pair with a queen, you're crushed by AA,KK,QQ and beat JJ/AK, provided no jack also hits. If you miss, you're crushed against that range. Your odds of hitting two pair are pretty terrible.
Not arguing against the way you played it, I don't really see a fold anywhere in the hand *at all* - but if you had a different textured flop, you probably would have (e.g. one that doesn't give you a made hand or halfway decent draw). My analysis above is more for readers who aren't well versed.
(I also am fully aware that my background is in NL/PL, where these sorts of spots also have significant reverse implied odds to factor in, which is less of a concern in limit.)
