$10 Deepstack, QQ UTG, facing huge raise from the blinds.

[Larx36]

OK guys let's do some maths then but first let's agree on the possible ways the hand could play out.

One move is to re-raise all in. Then the maths look like so:
EV = [(% of time he folds) * 1400] + [(% of time he calls)*Equity*20,000]

After the flop you are in position and let's assume a 60% c-bet of 1632 (Pot:2720). On what boards are we continuing and what's the plan for later streets?

WTF?.... you lost me at OK

[maccatak11]

Result: i snap folded. No way was i risking any more of my stack, when the bet was weird as hell.

Later they said they had aces, and they probably did, but i didnt care. I would have liked my fold even if they said they had QJo.

Just thought it was interesting about trying to put people on a range when they make a weird or non standard play - not that many people actually tried to assign a range.

[trishan]

OK guys let's do some maths then but first let's agree on the possible ways the hand could play out.

One move is to re-raise all in. Then the maths look like so:
EV = [(% of time he folds) * 1400] + [(% of time he calls)*Equity*20,000]

After the flop you are in position and let's assume a 60% c-bet of 1632 (Pot:2720). On what boards are we continuing and what's the plan for later streets?

WTF?.... you lost me at OK

David when you re-raise all in there are two things he can do - fold or call. The overall expected value is the weighted averages of expected values of each possibility. So let's say if we re-raise all in and he folds 60% of the time then:
EV(fold) = 60% * Current pot
= .6 * 1400
= 840

The other 40% of the time he calls and you have a certain amount of equity over a total pot of $20,000. Thus:

EV = (% of time he calls) * Equity vs Calling Range * 20,000
= 40% * [Equity of QQ v KK+,AK] * 20,000
= .40 * .40 * 20,000
= 3200

So for your reraise 8640 you will win 840 if he folds and 3200 if he calls. Therefore:

Overall EV = 840 + 3200 - 8640
= -4600

So if you expect he calls your reraise all in only 40% of the time then this is a very negative EV play. We can also find out the minimum calling % value to make this +EV (given he only calls with KK,AA,AK) by letting the % of times he calls equal Z, then:

(1-Z)*1400 + Z * .4 * 20,000 - 8640 > 0
1400 - 1400Z + 8000Z > 8640
6600Z > 7240
Z > 1.10

But Z can only be between 0 and 1, you can't call 110% of the time! So this is never a +EV move.

[Bacon]

Result: i snap folded. No way was i risking any more of my stack, when the bet was weird as hell.

Later they said they had aces, and they probably did, but i didnt care. I would have liked my fold even if they said they had QJo.

Just thought it was interesting about trying to put people on a range when they make a weird or non standard play - not that many people actually tried to assign a range.

What if it was QJhh?

[gmatical]

Result: i snap folded. No way was i risking any more of my stack, when the bet was weird as hell.

Later they said they had aces, and they probably did, but i didnt care. I would have liked my fold even if they said they had QJo.

Just thought it was interesting about trying to put people on a range when they make a weird or non standard play - not that many people actually tried to assign a range.

Who was the player?

[krunchie]

Result: i snap folded. No way was i risking any more of my stack, when the bet was weird as hell.

Later they said they had aces, and they probably did, but i didnt care. I would have liked my fold even if they said they had QJo.

Just thought it was interesting about trying to put people on a range when they make a weird or non standard play - not that many people actually tried to assign a range.

Who was the player?

1/ what difference does that make
2/ i dont think this forum is intended to out people, for any reason inocent or not
3/ this is results orientated questioning, and wether or not you agree pertains to incorect thinking

[JMACK007]

Who was the player?

1/ what difference does that make
2/ i dont think this forum is intended to out people, for any reason inocent or not
3/ this is results orientated questioning, and wether or not you agree pertains to incorect thinking

I don't think it is really results orientated, he is just trying to add to his notes on the particular player, which as you say, he should not be doing on this forum....

[gmatical]

Result: i snap folded. No way was i risking any more of my stack, when the bet was weird as hell.

Later they said they had aces, and they probably did, but i didnt care. I would have liked my fold even if they said they had QJo.

Just thought it was interesting about trying to put people on a range when they make a weird or non standard play - not that many people actually tried to assign a range.

Who was the player?

1/ what difference does that make
2/ i dont think this forum is intended to out people, for any reason inocent or not
3/ this is results orientated questioning, and wether or not you agree pertains to incorect thinking

1/ No difference
2/ If maccatak does not want to tell me, that's fine - i'm not looking to 'out' anyone
3/ Not sure what you mean in your above sentence - I just would like to write "raises huge with AA' in my player notes.

I would not care if i was the villan in this discussion and was 'outed' - its a public forum (and he/she may not even have had AA so the joke could be on me anyway)

I think their play could almost be applauded not a point of derision - it was unorthodox, confusing and worked.

[bennymacca]

I think their play could almost be applauded not a point of derision - it was unorthodox, confusing and worked.

if this person did indeed have aces, this DID NOT WORK

i would say, for a play to work, you would have to maximise the value of your hand against the person's range. this is almost certainly not done in this case - this person got matthew to fold just about the top of his range

horrible horrible play really

[trishan]

I would not care if i was the villan in this discussion and was 'outed' - its a public forum

Apparently it is etiquette to never name an opponent unless you have their permission. I have been cautioned for doing this recently.