Can 3b shoving K4o knowing you’ll get called possibly be +EV???
3 blind game. $2/3 and an UTG straddle from $6 to $15. UTG elects $15 on this hand. 8 handed.
V is a legit, according to
This is different than a tournament situation in that a 3.4xBB shove without ante would have some FE. Also, even though the maniac called with 7 high, we couldn't know that he wasn't folding 72o or whatever. If he folds his worst hands, it actually probably reduces our expected profit, as K4o plays well against them.
I kinda expect the blind raiser to call approximately as much as they're supposed to, sometimes calling any two cards sometimes folding hands like 86o that are supposed to call.
In the absence of reads, I'd expect a random sampling of deep-stack cash players to fold and wait for a better spot the first time around, and only start "gambling" once they feel the overall game environment has changed such that they'll have to loosen up if they ever hope to play a hand.
...Also, even though the maniac called with 7 high, we couldn't know that he wasn't folding 72o or whatever. If he folds his worst hands, it actually probably reduces our expected profit, as K4o plays well against them.
When I did the math just now (Definitely double-check it!), the loss in pot equity from V only playing their top X% range, doesn't make up for the (1-X)% times that H takes 120 uncontested.
(100 original bet, 20 from straddle and blinds. If V is the straddle, subtract 15 of dead money, but the general trend outlined below remains the same.)
I looked at V playing: Top 90, 80, 70, 60% only, folding the rest, and ignored the other Vs. The trend was increasing EV, the more of V's range they folded. Around Top 80%, H was a very slight dog if called, but the 20 in dead money made up for it on those 80%. And ofc, +120, 20% of the time made that moot.
At Top 70%, H was enough of a loser to start losing money if called for those 70%, but the 30% of the time they take 120 uncontested more than made up for it.
Hell yeah, now this thread's cooking! I take back everything that I said earlier.
In any case, multiway dynamics will be important. The equities can interact in unexpected ways. We may actually slightly improve our EV with a BB that's too loose because when another tight range calls, our equity is heavily reliant on scenarios where we improve, in which case we prefer to triple up with our pair and don't lose an equivalent amount of EV when we don't improve and finish in third K4o < AQo < 65s instead of 2nd K4o < AQo.
Then again, one question I've always had about the push-fold charts are what *everyone else's* stacks are, because they might assume a scenario where everyone is (eg) 5bbs deep, which will lead to more 3-way AIPF scenarios than in sidepot scenarios where deeper stacks can push each other out and force them to underrealize equity.
I really can't tell whether these dynamics will make our EV go up or down with a loser blind raiser.
I really can't tell whether these dynamics will make our EV go up or down with a loser blind raiser.
OP never said how deep the other players were, but there's also the possibility that we shove, another player calls, maniac raises over the top and they fold. In that case we would be all in heads up with the maniac with a bunch of additional dead money.
After seeing NH, GG's calcs it seems like a pretty clear shove. Additional fold equity should mostly only help us since the amount of dead money in relationship to our stack is so large. Our hand doesn't have outstanding equity even against a lot of weak combos so we'd mostly prefer everyone folds.
I do think the way we "vibe" these answers is important though since we won't have time to do the calculations in real time.
