3bet by bad player BvB flop analysis?

I never would have thought of that by myself, so if villains 5bets rely on fold equity and pot equity when called then;

If we start calling more 5bets we reduce his fold equity but we get into more all-in situations. If we start calling wide then his 5bets have little fold equity against us and rely more heavily on showdown equity. So 5 betting a weak range would become less appealing to villain as he has little fold equity he will have to narrow his range to increase his showdown equity vs my range? If I’m calling a lot that is, seems like the obvious adjustment for him.

So if villain 5bets all-in with a weak range then he wins when I fold and he will still win the pot x% of the time when I call.

If villain 3bets a weak range he only wins if I fold, he can also win if he flops big but that won’t happen very often. I don’t think I’v caught on to what you were trying to point out here, I’ll have to think over this one again.

I’m going to try and see how my second range plays out here;

So I’ve got my opening range {22+, AT+, KT+, QT+, JT} A total of 238 combinations.

Villain 3bets us and we can see from his bet sizing that we will be exploitable to
3bet bluffs with any two cards if we are folding more than 60% of the time.

238*0.6=142.8 so the maximum amount of combos I can fold to his 3bet without being exploited is lets say 143. I think I should be folding fairly close to this number as I am OOP and the mistakes that I will inevitably make post flop vs him will be larger due to the smaller SPR’s.

In my second range I suggested folding to 3bet with {22-88 AT KT QT+ JT} for a total of 7 paired hands and 5 unpaired hands which = 122 combinations. This means I will be folding to 3bet 51% of the time this is a lot better than ~17% in my first suggested range.

I suggested calling 3bets with {99-TT AJ+ KQ KJ} this is a total of 2 paired hands and 5 unpaired hands for a total of 92 combos. Which means I will be calling a 3bet 38.6% of the time.

Then I suggest 4bet calling {JJ+} which is 4 paired hands for a total of 24 combos. I will be 4bet calling 10% of the time.

Since im never folding to a 5bet I think the EV equation would look like this;
Assuming the same 4bet and 5bet sizing as your previous post.

<EV, shove> = (1)(E)($8.93)+(1)(1-E)(-$7.43)

Since there are only two possible outcomes, I call his 5bet and he wins the pot his equity% of the time or I call his 5bet and he loses his bet, 1 minus his equity % of the time.

I’m only realizing now I don’t know how you get 8.93 in the ev equation.

If I call his 5bet 7.43+7.43+ the 2.70 already in the pot would the pot not be ~$17?

Since I’m never folding he can only 5bet profitably against me with a hand that has >50% equity vs my calling range I think? So KK seems like the worst hands that has >50% equity QQ only has 40%. So he can only 5bet a range of KK+ profitably. Breaking the EV formula down and comparing it to 0 villains EV from folding to my 4bets isn’t necessary here is it since im never folding to 5bets he can only 5bet with over 50% equity? This logic just hit me when I was thinking about those ranges is this correct?

Apologies for such a monster post.

Originally Posted by seven-deuce

Since I’m never folding he can only 5bet profitably against me with a hand that has >50% equity vs my calling range I think?

If you 4-bet, he basically has the options of calling, folding or 5-betting all-in (he could 5-bet to less than an all-in, but that's an inferior option with these bet sizes though I don't feel like proving it right now -- use the search function if you'd like to know more I guess).

You can't assume the bold here since Villain can't check. Since we can't really look at Villain's EV of calling a 4-bet without writing a short novel, check the EV of Villain's other two options and see when the EV of shoving is better than the EV of folding.

For an extreme counter-example to the bold, what if the pot was $1,000,000 and Villain had $1 behind. Would he prefer to shove with 32o (doesn't have 50%+ equity against your calling range) or fold?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

(he could 5-bet to less than an all-in, but that's an inferior option with these bet sizes though I don't feel like proving it right now -- use the search function if you'd like to know more I guess).

You can't assume the bold here since Villain can't check. Since we can't really look at Villain's EV of calling a 4-bet without writing a short novel, check the EV of Villain's other two options and see when the EV of shoving is better than the EV of folding.

For an extreme counter-example to the bold, what if the pot was $1,000,000 and Villain had $1 behind. Would he prefer to shove with 32o (doesn't have 50%+ equity against your calling range) or fold?

Ill try comparing the EV of folding to 5bet shoving. Well the EV of folding is obviously 0 so ill try work the rest out.

So if the stack and pot sizes were different he wouldn't need 50% like in your example.

So can we assume that providing the villain has a decent stack left and isn't pot committed he needs 50% equity to shove?

Originally Posted by seven-deuce

Ill try comparing the EV of folding to 5bet shoving. Well the EV of folding is obviously 0 so ill try work the rest out.

So if the stack and pot sizes were different he wouldn't need 50% like in your example.

So can we assume that providing the villain has a decent stack left and isn't pot committed he needs 50% equity to shove?

It's not so much about the stack/pot sizes as it is about his alternative option to betting being folding. Folding has an EV of 0. If your alternative option to betting is checking, then this isn't the case (checking has an EV > 0).

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

It's not so much about the stack/pot sizes as it is about his alternative option to betting being folding. Folding has an EV of 0. If your alternative option to betting is checking, then this isn't the case (checking has an EV > 0).

Ah right i get it now, why would he choose an inferior option, he can fold and gain 0 EV or shove and gain some EV. And we're always trying to take the option with the greatest EV.