I see your point about calling that last bet if he reraises. I might have
wimped out on my read and called for pot odds. Out of curousity, I just
did the actual math on that situation. It turns out you were right about
this, but it is close. I felt I was 90% sure that he'd only reraise if
holding a hand that beats me. To call that reraise, the pot would then
lay me 1-to-16, which is 94.2%. A call of the reraise then, does have
positive EV. However, if I were 95% sure rather than just 90% sure, the
call has negative EV. What a marginal situation! The fact that it's so
marginal makes me feel like it is an edge not worth pushing.
Note too that the SB (who holds the straight) is all-in in this case, and
it's the MP that I am now heads-up with for a side pot our raises will
create. I think a reraise is mandatory if I believe the SB with the
straight will pay off raises cold (and that fish would have if he had
chips). In that case, both full houses are getting good EV from the
straight-holder's bad play, even if I'm ultimately beat.
I spent some time trying to calculate the actual EV of the three
situations (not raising, paying off the reraise, or folding if reraised)
to see which one had the best EV. I had some trouble figuring it out,
because I was unsure to factor in all the different percentages that come
into play when the MP gives me more information by raising. I think
that's the key factor in my EV -- that I become so sure . I haven't done
a lot of complicated EV calculations, so I am going to have to reread
Theory of Poker to remind myself how to do those kinds of
complex calculations.
Re: Last Hand
I see your point about calling that last bet if he reraises. I might have wimped out on my read and called for pot odds. Out of curousity, I just did the actual math on that situation. It turns out you were right about this, but it is close. I felt I was 90% sure that he'd only reraise if holding a hand that beats me. To call that reraise, the pot would then lay me 1-to-16, which is 94.2%. A call of the reraise then, does have positive EV. However, if I were 95% sure rather than just 90% sure, the call has negative EV. What a marginal situation! The fact that it's so marginal makes me feel like it is an edge not worth pushing.
Note too that the SB (who holds the straight) is all-in in this case, and it's the MP that I am now heads-up with for a side pot our raises will create. I think a reraise is mandatory if I believe the SB with the straight will pay off raises cold (and that fish would have if he had chips). In that case, both full houses are getting good EV from the straight-holder's bad play, even if I'm ultimately beat.
I spent some time trying to calculate the actual EV of the three situations (not raising, paying off the reraise, or folding if reraised) to see which one had the best EV. I had some trouble figuring it out, because I was unsure to factor in all the different percentages that come into play when the MP gives me more information by raising. I think that's the key factor in my EV -- that I become so sure . I haven't done a lot of complicated EV calculations, so I am going to have to reread Theory of Poker to remind myself how to do those kinds of complex calculations.