3 ms·
> She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the all-in bet and while the play was marginally +EV, it wasn’t much. That's not what it means to make a +
by baobabKoodaa 4y ago
> She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the all-in bet and while the play was marginally +EV, it wasn’t much.
That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range. In this case the EV of the call was extremely negative EVEN IF we assume that the all-in was a bluff 100% of the time. Problem is that jack high usually doesn't beat a bluff in this scenario. If you adjust that 100% to something realistic like 60% or 30% or whatnot, it becomes even more severely -EV.
- alasdair_ 4y ago>That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range. My point was that if she was cheating and knew what his cards were, there is no range to care about. And even then, it’s not significantly +EV.
- friedman23 4y agoIt's extremely +ev to call. If she folds she loses close to 35 thousand dollars of ev edit: closer to 20k, i didn't remember the exact pot size
- mod 4y agoYour conclusion is correct, and your math is wrong. She loses her share/EV (47% per the graphics) of the pot (41.7k per the graphics) if she folds. So it's worth more like 20k to call, if she knows his exact hand.
- friedman23 4y agoI didn't remember the exact pot size. I thought she raised 12k into 40k then got raised all in
- mod 4y agoHe bet 10k into 11.7k, she clicked it back to 20k, he shoved covering her 129k total to start the turn.
- baobabKoodaa 4y agoAh, sorry.