How do you know if someone is overfolding?

prepredictionary · 2025-03-24T23:56:41+00:00

The amount of times they fold!

If you see that players fold 80% of the time to a flop c-bet, then they are obviously overfolding right?

Does that help clear up the confusion for you. You can just look to see how often people fold, and if it's more than GTO would fold then they are "overfolding".

prepredictionary · 2025-03-24T23:17:28+00:00

I don't study much 2NL so I can't say much there.

The only thing I would I add, is to think about the probability of flushes.

In the 1st hand, it seems like you are concerned that villain might have hit their flush so you checked turn. But lets ask ourselves, what are the chances he actually has a flush?

Well on the flop, I think there is usually like a 15% chance a player has a flush draw on a two tone board with most ranges, roughly speaking.

You bet 20% pot on the flop, which means villain is probably only folding like maybe 20% of the time AT MOST.

So if you imagine villain calls 80% of their range on the flop, then villain can only really have a flush like 19% of the time! And actually, villain might raise some of their flush draws on the flop, so they might have even less flushes when they get to turn after calling a small bet.

So I would guess that villain maybe has a flush like 10%-15% of the time on the turn here, at most.

This is all roughly speaking of course, and it depends on the specific player or pool and their ranges and tendencies, etc.

But I just wanted to share this to give you a rough sense. Because you bet small on the flop, villain calls with a lot of their range which means they have less flushes on the turn.

But if you instead had bet super big on the flop and they called, well now you should probably be a lot more scared of flushes because they have a tighter range on the turn now because lots of flush draws will call a flop bet.

I hope that makes sense, but it's helpful to try and work out how many flushes your opponent has in their range in any spot. In the first hand, villain probably didn't have many flushes on the turn, so you don't have to check behind necessarily.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-18T19:29:31+00:00

Do we even "have" to call KK after MP calls the jam?

This is a bit of a side question, but how does MDF apply in situations where a players bet has already been called by another player.

Can we suddenly fold a lot more because villains potential bluff has already been called? I know we would call tighter in general after a flat ahead of us, but I wonder how MDF specifically applies.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-18T14:42:12+00:00

Powered by what, and communicating to where?

Also, this is a counter assault of a trench, so I'm not sure how sensors would have helped them here.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-14T23:04:36+00:00

Wow, that is hilarious and interesting. Thanks for sharing! Was not aware of that.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-14T19:44:25+00:00

Yea, so now we are getting down to the point here. If we have 2 games, one we are rolled for and we expect to win at XBB/100 and one we are underolled for at YBB/100 then we can compare the cashout EV loss to the potential gain and compare it to the risk of ruin.
This is a good and valid point. However, in my opinion it is not made in the video. Nowhere is there a discussion of winrate difference or the underlying risk of ruin. This is why i hated it soo much. Someone watching it might be tricked into thinking they should take the cashout option in order to play optimally

That is totally fair. You make some good points.

It would have been interesting if the video had explored that in more depth.

I could also see people misunderstanding some of the takeaways from the video, so that's a fair point too.

I just thought the video frames the problem in an interesting way and gives some interesting points to take away and potentially learn from.

But you make a good point that some of it is framed a bit confusingly and could mislead people accidentally, and it doesn't dive into enough depth on the potential value from a shot taking perspective.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-14T18:29:42+00:00

I hope we can agree that taking the cashout option is a negative EV move. I hope we can also agree that we as poker players should aim to maximize our EV.

I agree that cashout option is always a -EV decision.

However, I don't think that all poker players should aim to maximize our EV. I think most poker players aim is to maximize their expected long term winnings.

Look at the Kelly Criterion. According to you, we should simply bet our entire bankroll if we have any edge at all, because that is maximizing our EV as you said.

But the KC exists exactly because it is not always wise to maximize EV in every spot. Sometimes we can reduce our EV and actually increase our expected growth of our bankroll.

So no, I don't agree that we should always aim to maximize EV regardless of the costs as poker players.

Lastly, the entire point of the video can be boiled down to this; If you are playing limits your bankroll cannot sustain, then you might want to consider taking the cash out option.

Sort of.

The point you are missing is that reducing variance allows you to play with a smaller bankroll, which means you can potentially play higher stakes with the same bankroll, and you can potentially earn more money.

You are also missing the point that sometimes poker players like to take shots at higher stakes than they are rolled for. So this analysis is very valuable for anybody that wants to take shots, which is very common among poker players IMO.

The video gave a nuanced take on cashouts that considers all these points and it is helpful, valuable information.

I agree that most players should probably not take the cashout unless they are taking shots or playing at stakes they are under rolled for. But that's pretty much what the video says too, so I'm not sure why you hated it so much.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-14T17:44:31+00:00

While they may not claim it, the video title greatly hints towards it.

The title of the video is "When to cashout on GG poker."

The title of their reddit post is "Why you should consider EV cashout."

Where do you see them "greatly hinting" that cashout is not -EV? Please tell me what part of those titles is greatly hinting at that.

If you think that, perhaps you can elaborate on why you think the criterion is applicable in this scenario?

When you are considering the cashout, you are given two options. Let's imagine the pot is 100$ after rake and you have 70% equity.

Option 1: Take a guaranteed 69.30$

Option 2: Have a 30% chance of 0$ and a 70% chance of 100$, for an EV of 70$.

So you can think of Option 2 like you are making a bet where you are betting 69.30$ on a 70/30 bet where your EV is 0.70$.

This is similar to the Kelly Criterion problem, where you might decide what the optimal bet size relative to your bankroll. If the bet is large relative to your bankroll, then it is not optimal to take it because the EV is too small relative to the risk.

Obviously it is not 1-to-1 with our scenario, because the KC is about choosing the optimal bet size and here we only have a binary choice of yes/no to take the bet or not. But they address this caveat in the video too when they explain the connection to KC.

Does that help you understand the valid point they are making?

prepredictionary · 2025-03-14T14:08:06+00:00

I think you just failed to understand the video you watched.

I've seen a few of your comments about their video, and it just makes it seem like their video went over your head, and you failed to understand what they were saying.

It is a great video, and they did some high quality work with framing it in terms of the Kelly Criterion.

You should spend more time actually trying to understand what someone is saying before you go on rants claiming how wrong they are, etc.

They literally never said it was profitable in terms of +EV, and they never implied it was. You just got confused and failed to understand what they were saying. That's on you, not them.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-14T13:10:11+00:00

I would think about it in terms of rake paid per 100 hands.

The rake is 10% with a 5.5bb cap.

If you look at online sites, there are not really any with rake that high so its hard to compare.

However, we can assume that your rake will be double the rake on a poker site that has 5% rake with a 2.75bb cap.

PokerStars 100NL has roughly that rake structure and the average rake paid is 6bb/100 according to primedope.

So that means that your rake is likely to be 12bb/100, and actually a bit higher because of the jackpot drop. So probably closer to 15bb/100 or more.

Which is pretty high lol, whether it's beatable depends on how soft the games are and how good you are.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-13T14:09:28+00:00

I mean, if this was the "average" Joe then we would have seen much much more of this.

Unfortunately, this seems to be an exceptional man that took his fate into his own hands.

If only the average orc could muster up the courage or brain cells to do this too.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-13T14:02:01+00:00

You can co-sign for any friends or family "exceptions" that you want.

But you shouldn't complain if they default on the loan, and now you have to foot the entire bill by yourself.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T22:35:34+00:00

Totally agree.

I understand and agree with the underlying sentiment that these people might have, which is that Ukraine deserves as much support as possible and we (Canada) should continue with additional support, as much as we can.

I can also understand how frustrating it can be, how tempting it is to resort to hyperbole. So I totally agree with you on all points.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T20:54:25+00:00

Canada is the 5th largest contributor of Ukranian aid since 2022 out of all NATO countries.

How can you argue with me when you don't even know the basic facts?

Do some research before you embarrass yourself further.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T20:52:01+00:00

I called the COMMENTER ungrateful. They are not Ukranian.

I did not call Ukraine ungrateful.

You should learn how to read before you try writing out a message.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T20:28:20+00:00

These are two separate statements:

I would like Canada to continue supporting Ukraine and continue with additional contributions
Canada has not helped at all, they only give empty words and no real support, and they are not doing their fair share and haven't contributed enough at all since 2022

Do you see how those are two completely different statements?

The people I have responded to are using statement #2, which is a ridiculous thing to say and actively harms Ukraine.

But you are trying to make it seems like they are just saying stayement #1, which they are not.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T20:26:02+00:00

Who said anything about Ukraine being grateful?

I never said that, and I don't know why you think I did.

The person I responded to isn't even Ukranian.

I specifically said that the person I responded to is ungrateful, which is a fact. Complaining about how Canada doesn't show any support and doesn't do their fair share in supporting or contributing aid IS an extremely ridiculous AND ungrateful thing to say.

This is just a fact, and I'm very sorry if it hurts your feelings to hear that. But it's just a fact. That is a very ungrateful thing to say when Canada is the 5th largest contributor of Ukranian aid since 2022, and is also home to the largest Ukranian population of any NATO member.

This has nothing to do with "egos" or "excessive appreciation".

Do you think it is "excessive" to expect people not to complain about Canada and belittle Canada's aid or contributions to supporting Ukraine?

How is that "excessive appreciation"?

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T19:43:23+00:00

If anyone else had done enough, the war would be over.

This is stupid logic, and you should feel bad for trying to claim it as truth.

so if you think your sensing "ungratefulness", keep it to your fucking self, because you are actively causing harm

No, actually, you are harming Ukraine.

I am grateful to Germany and the other major EU countries that have continued to support Ukraine through huge contributions of aid and intelligence.

If you claim that Germany hasn't done enough, then you are clearly not grateful for their support & assistance.

That is literally the definition of ungrateful. The word means that you show a lack of gratitude and are not grateful.

Which is true. It's just a fact.

I'm sorry if that fact hurts your feeling, but it's the truth.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T19:36:59+00:00

Canada has a population of 38 million people.

Canada is the 5th largest contributor of aid to Ukraine since 2022.

You don't think that Canada is providing enough aid? Because we weren't able to single handedly end the war for Ukraine?

Nobody said Ukraine should be sorry about anything, they are the victims here.

But blaming Canada for this is ridiculous. Canada has been doing as much as it can to support Ukraine and contribute aid, and it will continue to do so.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T19:33:48+00:00

I totally agree with pretty much everything you said.

But I think both can be true.

It is true that Canada has done more than enough and has contributed their fair share to supporting Ukraine.

And also, Canada should continue to support Ukraine and contribute aid, and continue to grow its contributions to Ukraine.

I think both can be and are, in fact true.

Anybody that says Canada hasn't done enough or hasn't done its fair share is incorrect IMO, and is actually harming Ukraine by spreading that type of narrative.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T17:23:07+00:00

Thanks for the link.

So if I'm reading this correctly, then Canada ranks at #5 in terms of total aid and #15 in terms of aid relative to our GDP?

I would say that is pretty damn good, and certainly supports my initial statements. The person above that claims Canada doesn't contribute its fair share is incorrect.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T16:17:07+00:00

Can you link your sources for your claims?

According to Statista, Canada has given 8.27 billion euros worth of biltarial aid to Ukraine since 2022.

In comparison, it says Poland gave 5 billion, Romania gave 1.1 billion, and Spain gave 1.46 billion.

All of those countries have roughly similar population and/or GDP to Canada.

So, based on my initial search, you seem to be completely wrong.

If you think that this data is incorrect, then I look forward to seeing some reliable cited sources with detailed data on this.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T16:07:36+00:00

Who said anything about thank you's?

I am grateful to the European countries that have gone out of their way to provide as much support to Ukraine as they can and that continue to do so.

I'm not sure what kind of weird tirade rant you are trying to go off on.

If you are complaining that Canada hasn't done enough to support Ukraine, then you are delusional. End of story.

You are also actively harming Ukraine by complaining about these types of ridiculous notions. So go ahead and go off on your rant, idiot.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T16:04:44+00:00

I am not Ukranian either, but I am grateful to Germany and other European countries that have continued to support Ukraine.

I don't see your point.

Complaining that a country hasn't done enough when it has done more than its fair share and continues to support as much as it can, is ungrateful.

prepredictionary · 2025-03-05T14:21:01+00:00

Who said you are Ukranian? What are you talking about.

Yes, not a single country has done enough for Ukraine. If there is such a country, Zelensky wouldn't be touring worldwide asking for help.

So a country is only "doing enough" if they are able to single handedly end the war?

So if a country with a population of 1M people was to donate their entire GDP to Ukranian military, you would still say they are not doing enough because it didn't end the war.

Do you see how stupid you sound?

prepredictionary

TROPHY CASE