50NL: ship it with 77

[Silverthunder]

Anyway, I can't find this hand history but here is what happened

Villain, I believe, had a 60 BB stack 50NL game. I have him covered.

This was the second hand against him. We were at a 6 max table, just the two of us.

First hand I raise from the button & he 3 bets me. I fold.

Second hand, he completes, I raise, he 3 bets again. I ship it with 77.

What do you guys think of that play? My hand is a coinflip against a lot of his calling range and I should get some respect for folding to the first 3 bet. I also could not profitably set mine against him. I guess a lot of you would probably flat & barrel a lot of flops.

I feel like in heads up, your chance sometimes comes early on in the match to play back at villain.

[chinz]

It's OK.

I would probably shove something like 66+, AJs+ and AQo+ there. I guess you could go even lighter than that. I wouldn't be shoving hands like A4s or A6o (which I could sometimes 4/5bet bluff with) here, because people will understand that they get shoved very light in a spot like this, so you're gonna get called by hands like AT or small PPs a lot.

[urbansprawler]

Looks awfully spewy to me.

[given1982]

I think it's fine.

[urbansprawler]

Oh wait...this is 2 hands in a row or just 2 hands? If it's the former, I'm shipping.

[chinz]

Even without that "history" it's OK to shove small/medium PPs over 3bets for 60bb, assuming that villain is 3betting somewhat often.

If he calls us with 5% range (99+, AQ+) and is 3betting 15% (probably quite avarage in HU) we should have around 67% of folding equity. Even when he calls, we've got 35.6% against his range.

I'm too lazy to do the exact math, but if someone has 3bet frequency significantly more than 10% I start shoving PPs over 3bets with 60bb effective stacks.

[Silverthunder]

Originally Posted by chinz

Even without that "history" it's OK to shove small/medium PPs over 3bets for 60bb, assuming that villain is 3betting somewhat often.

If he calls us with 5% range (99+, AQ+) and is 3betting 15% (probably quite avarage in HU) we should have around 67% of folding equity. Even when he calls, we've got 35.6% against his range.

I'm too lazy to do the exact math, but if someone has 3bet frequency significantly more than 10% I start shoving PPs over 3bets with 60bb effective stacks.

Chinz, from your post, I noticed the mistake in my method and corrected it & I got the same thing as you.
.67*(1.5 raise + $ 6-3 bet) = $5.025
.33*($31.50 all in pot profit)*.356 = $3.70
.33*(-28.50 all in loss)*(1-.356)= -$6.05

EV = +2.66

US- yes, first to hands, only 2 hands versus villain, unless I played him before with nothing even remotely memorable.

[chinz]

Originally Posted by Silverthunder

Does my math look about right; I did math like this on another thread & I don't think that I was ever able to get anyone to double check it.

Your math is a bit off.

First (F), we're winning $7.5 when he folds (if $6 is his 3bet size). F = 7.5

Second (C), we when we have 35.6% equity so we are winning $21.36 by avarage. We are shoving $28.5, so that means we lose about $7 more by avarage when called... C = -7.14


So, when you combine those (0.67*F+0.33*C), you should notice that we win something like $2.7 every time we do this. That's like 500bb/100 expectation, which is pretty good for any HU preflop situation.



I did this really quick and I've never actually checked those maths from anywhere, just came up with them myself. I'm not 100% sure if I'm taking money already invested into the calculations in the right way. I'm almost 100% sure that given will be posting more exact numbers later, if I'm wrong... =)

Anyway, you should be able to see from those numbers right away without even doing the math, that shoving 77 over a 15% 3betting range is +EV when you're 60bb deep and he 3bets to 12bb. And his calling range doesn't actually even matter here, as long as someones 3betting 15%, this is profitable regardless of his calling range.


PS.
-$4.3 expectation in preflop situation (vs. ranges, not in single hand) wouldn't be marginal, that goes to the "awful spew" category.