Re: FLHE semibluffs

Re: FLHE semibluffs

Taylor (Chuck) found me awake this morning at 4am. I had an acute case of insomnia and decided to play some poker. One hand I played was 7c6c out of the small blind, where I openraised and the big blind called.

The flop came A-Q-5, two clubs. I bet the flop, the big blind raised, and I 3-bet.

This is the Skype-conversation between me and Taylor after the hand:

[4:25:28 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: I want to represent the ace. Without fold equity, there's absolutely no point in pumping a flushdraw on the flop heads-up
[4:25:43 AM] Taylor: true
[4:26:00 AM] Taylor: unless maybe going for a turn check w/ position?
[4:26:24 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: If I'm going to do that, the pot has to be bigger than it was now.
[4:26:51 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: I.e. if it's capped preflop or if it's three-way (but one guy has folded on the flop and it's bet into you) then it's OK, if you have AKs or so
[4:27:14 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: When you check, you don't want to forfeit any fold equity
[4:27:20 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: Or as little as possible
[4:27:42 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: With a capped flop preflop, you're not giving up much by checking behind AKs UI on the turn, since no better hand will fold
[4:27:46 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: See what I mean?
[4:28:20 AM] Taylor: dont you forfeit tons of FE by checking behind? i always get led into on the river if the flush is missed
[4:28:40 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: Not the really juicy kind: The kind where you actually get him to fold a better hand.
[4:28:50 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: I forfeit the kind where he may fold a six-outer.
[4:29:31 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: But that's not at all as expensive as forfeiting a situation where he might fold a hand that has > 50% to win
[4:29:46 AM] Taylor: i think i get you
[4:30:09 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: This is why you should bluff in FLHE, but you should bluff the really really crappy hands.

unless maybe going for a turn check w/ position?

I don't get it, you are in the sb, so how do you have position here? Three betting on the draw with no fold equity is exactly what is happening here, right? Are you saying its a good idea since you are 2:1 with two cards to come? How is a flush draw a "really crappy hand"?

I still don't get some of your points fully. It's rolling on 230am here though, so I'll save my replies for tomorrow.

aliengenius said:

unless maybe going for a turn check w/ position?

I don't get it, you are in the sb, so how do you have position here?

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to FP's hand, I was just referring to playing FDs in position in general.

aliengenius said:

unless maybe going for a turn check w/ position?

I don't get it, you are in the sb, so how do you have position here? Three betting on the draw with no fold equity is exactly what is happening here, right? Are you saying its a good idea since you are 2:1 with two cards to come? How is a flush draw a "really crappy hand"?

Click to expand...

Sorry, let me clarify:

Pumping a flushdraw on the flop HU, in general, is only +EV if have significant fold equity. Then Taylor asks about if it's defensible in a situation where we're in position as a way to take a free river card, and that's what I respond to later.

Then I wanted to make a general statement on FE: "bluffing crappy hands". I wouldn't "bluff" KQo unimproved on an ace-high board on the river if I've been called so far, but I might bet 32s. The more hands that beat you, the more likely you should be to bluff. This is why checking behind with AKs is okay in a large pot on the turn if it's extremely clear that we have zero fold equity (i.e. capped preflop vs. some opponents, or capped flop vs. most). Edit: And this is why 76s is a better candidate for 3-betting this flop than K8s would have been, is part of the point.

I realize that my thoughts weren't coherently put into writing but I was 4-tabling while writing it and I do raise some points that it takes most people a lot of experience to come to so I wanted to get it posted before going back to bed.

Oh, and another addendum: There is zero FE on this flop. However, by 3-betting this flop (with likely > 33% equity, so it doesn't cost me much) I'm hopefully increasing my fold equity later in the hand. As in, by reclaiming the initiative now, I may make him fold a hand like KJ, KT or 22-66 on the turn or the river. Because of the pot size, I'm already committed to seeing the next two cards and my choice is between making it as cheap as possible and just call down (and forfeit all fold equity) or take the cost of two extra small bets and attempt to achieve some fold equity on later streets, effectively making this a semi-bluff 3-bet, but with the "bluff" part actually more in effect on the turn or river.

Note that this is not the standard play, and against unknown players I would simply call to the river and fold UI after being raised on the flop, but against aggressive opponents who are more likely to attempt a re-steal, this is usually good. Even most re-steal bluff hands actually beat what I have.

What limit FLHE are you playing?

I'm playing at the micro levels still and find it easy to turn over profits (double or triple the stakes I bring in), but I generally find it a bad idea to bluff in this game just due to the fact that a missed bluff with a BB will then require winning 2 just to break even again.

But at micro, people are generally gonna call you down. So I'm wondering if you're playing at higher limits where I can imagine bluffs to have more success. But on the hand above, you say that you want to represent the ace but shouldn't you be more worried about the fact your opponent is representing this and just call him down until you make your draw? How did the hand pan out?

Take 2

I just re-read my post from earlier and saw that it doesn't make any of the points I thought when originally reading the OP. I blame it on being written too soon after getting out of bed! Let me have another crack at it:

My main point would be that for me a hand like 76 suited would only be really playable from a late position with at least 2 callers ahead of me. The main premise of your post is correct, you want to ensure that you get money in the pot to bet your draw, you should always ensure that money is going into the pot on the turn if you are made, think you are leading, or have a strong draw like the flush or oes. You can call it a semi-bluff but to me it is really betting for value and it is a common beginner mistake not to bet these and slow play in limit because they reduce the value of their wins when they hit.

Position is the best method of ensuring that the money is going in and that is not going to cost more than you want to pay, if you have the callers ahead of you and they check to you then you can put the bet in, if it is raised ahead of you then you can just call it, at least you have the position to determine that your goal (geting money into the pot) is accomplished. If you pick up these cards in an advanced position then you don't have so much control over the hand, if you check it it might not get raised behind, if you raise it might get re-raised, both are situations that you don't really want.

With that in mind, if in your hand it was folded around to you and you decided to take on the BB heads up with 76 suited, then I think it was a poor move and you got lucky that the cards flopped for you, once you get it though a bet there is correct. However, the bet you make doesn't just represent the ace, for me it would say ace OR flush draw and probably 50-50 chance of each because good limit players will get money in the pot on the flop for their draws, its still the cheap bet so if you get a re-raise isn't the end of the world and you can re-evaluate on turn. If you had either the ace or the flush draw you would money going into the pot so a bet or a call doesn't make much difference.

F Paulsson said:

[4:25:28 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: I want to represent the ace. Without fold equity, there's absolutely no point in pumping a flushdraw on the flop heads-up
[4:25:43 AM] Taylor: true
[4:26:00 AM] Taylor: unless maybe going for a turn check w/ position?
[4:26:24 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: If I'm going to do that, the pot has to be bigger than it was now.

Click to expand...

Why is this?

F Paulsson said:

[4:27:14 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: When you check, you don't want to forfeit any fold equity
[4:27:20 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: Or as little as possible
[4:27:42 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: With a capped flop preflop, you're not giving up much by checking behind AKs UI on the turn, since no better hand will fold
[4:27:46 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: See what I mean?
[4:28:20 AM] Taylor: dont you forfeit tons of FE by checking behind? i always get led into on the river if the flush is missed
[4:28:40 AM] Fredrik Paulsson: Not the really juicy kind: The kind where you actually get him to fold a better hand.

Click to expand...

I understand the tidbit about how we should be bluffing a little 'harder' with weaker hands because we have less of a hand to fall back on, and because we're less likely to be ahead, but I'm not getting your last line here.

What I meant by checking behind is this; we raise or reraise a flush draw heads up with position (different from your hand) to get a free card on the turn, on top of possibly folding out a better hand on the flop, as well as disguising our hand for when we hit.

How do we not lose FE by checking behind on the turn, regardless what 'kind' it is? Don't we lose FE vs all ranges of hands that have us beat?

DaFrench1 said:

My main point would be that for me a hand like 76 suited would only be really playable from a late position with at least 2 callers ahead of me.

Click to expand...

What I did was a blind steal. Nothing more, nothing less.

The main premise of your post is correct, you want to ensure that you get money in the pot to bet your draw, you should always ensure that money is going into the pot on the turn if you are made, think you are leading, or have a strong draw like the flush or oes. You can call it a semi-bluff but to me it is really betting for value and it is a common beginner mistake not to bet these and slow play in limit because they reduce the value of their wins when they hit.

Click to expand...

No. My flushdraw is not a favorite to win heads-up, therefore my bet is not for value and my 3-bet is definitely not for value. It's a semi-bluff.

With that in mind, if in your hand it was folded around to you and you decided to take on the BB heads up with 76 suited, then I think it was a poor move and you got lucky that the cards flopped for you, once you get it though a bet there is correct. However, the bet you make doesn't just represent the ace, for me it would say ace OR flush draw and probably 50-50 chance of each because good limit players will get money in the pot on the flop for their draws, its still the cheap bet so if you get a re-raise isn't the end of the world and you can re-evaluate on turn. If you had either the ace or the flush draw you would money going into the pot so a bet or a call doesn't make much difference.

Click to expand...

Getting money in heads-up when you're not a favorite is not the smart way to play a strong draw unless you can count on significant fold equity. Pumping draws is not something good limit hold 'em players do heads-up, unless they believe they can push the other guy off the pot, which makes betting and raising as a semi-bluff, not for value.

/FP

ChuckTs said:

Why is this?

Click to expand...

Because of how much I'm paying to get a free card. Raising to take a free card is something I only do when the pot is already so big that I'm virtually committed to showdown. Because when I check behind on the turn - like you said - I'm often bet into and may have to make a call with AK unimproved.

If the pot is just four small bets on the flop, the free card play generally isn't worth it. It could be argued that if it's heads-up and I have the AK-high flushdraw (i.e. two overcards) then I in fact could pump the flop for value since I have so many likely outs, but I find that in almost all cases, my extra raise is something that carries around 50% equity, whereas I forfeit the chance of raising the turn or the river (thus getting in an extra big bet when I when I hit) and that loss is much bigger than the few percent equity I might give up by not raising on the flop.

I understand the tidbit about how we should be bluffing a little 'harder' with weaker hands because we have less of a hand to fall back on, and because we're less likely to be ahead, but I'm not getting your last line here.

What I meant by checking behind is this; we raise or reraise a flush draw heads up with position (different from your hand) to get a free card on the turn, on top of possibly folding out a better hand on the flop, as well as disguising our hand for when we hit.

How do we not lose FE by checking behind on the turn, regardless what 'kind' it is? Don't we lose FE vs all ranges of hands that have us beat?

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure I follow you, but let me say this:

3-betting the flop carries no immediate fold equity at all. Virtually no hand will raise this flop and directly fold to a 3-bet, because even the pure bluffs will want to pretend they have something and see a turn card so that we don't understand what they just did. The fold equity that we gain by 3-betting the flop is that we may get a better hand to fold on the turn.

Regarding what kind it is, I don't think you got me right. What I mean is that my opponent can have two kinds of hands: Ones that are a favorite over me, and ones that aren't.

Example: I have AsKs on the button. A decent player raises UTG, fold, fold, I 3-bet, blinds fold, he caps, I call.

The flop comes 5-5-8, two spades, and he bets. I raise - and at this point, that raise is for value, because I'm a favorite to win over his range - but now he 3-bets.

I'm not a favorite to win against, for instance, QQ or JJ so pumping my draw wouldn't be smart even if I knew that they had specifically one of those two hands.

...

Crap, I need to go. To be continued when I get back to a computer!

F Paulsson said:

Because of how much I'm paying to get a free card. Raising to take a free card is something I only do when the pot is already so big that I'm virtually committed to showdown. Because when I check behind on the turn - like you said - I'm often bet into and may have to make a call with AK unimproved.

Click to expand...

OK, so it's not just a way to get a free river card, but a way to get a cheap showdown when the pot's big?

F Paulsson said:

If the pot is just four small bets on the flop, the free card play generally isn't worth it. It could be argued that if it's heads-up and I have the AK-high flushdraw (i.e. two overcards) then I in fact could pump the flop for value since I have so many likely outs, but I find that in almost all cases, my extra raise is something that carries around 50% equity, whereas I forfeit the chance of raising the turn or the river (thus getting in an extra big bet when I when I hit) and that loss is much bigger than the few percent equity I might give up by not raising on the flop.

Click to expand...

Because he's usually checking to us on the turn after we pump the flop? ie he'll most probably check-call a king turn if we've jammed the flop, but if we don't go nuts on the flop, he's more likely to keep leading with QQ/JJ on a king turn, right?

If so it's making a lot more sense to me.

F Paulsson said:

I'm not entirely sure I follow you, but let me say this:

3-betting the flop carries no immediate fold equity at all. Virtually no hand will raise this flop and directly fold to a 3-bet, because even the pure bluffs will want to pretend they have something and see a turn card so that we don't understand what they just did. The fold equity that we gain by 3-betting the flop is that we may get a better hand to fold on the turn.

Click to expand...

This part really helped; there's no point in pumping the flop with 67s for a FD if we don't plan on betting the turn as well since that's when they'll most likely be folding. We'll also rarely fold out any hands on the river (should we choose to bet) unimproved since we took the flop raise/turn check line that doesn't exactly fit a monster.

F Paulsson said:

Regarding what kind it is, I don't think you got me right. What I mean is that my opponent can have two kinds of hands: Ones that are a favorite over me, and ones that aren't.

Example: I have AsKs on the button. A decent player raises UTG, fold, fold, I 3-bet, blinds fold, he caps, I call.

The flop comes 5-5-8, two spades, and he bets. I raise - and at this point, that raise is for value, because I'm a favorite to win over his range - but now he 3-bets.

I'm not a favorite to win against, for instance, QQ or JJ so pumping my draw wouldn't be smart even if I knew that they had specifically one of those two hands.

...

Crap, I need to go. To be continued when I get back to a computer!

Click to expand...

Thanks again FP; this is all very helpful to me and others, I'm sure.

Sorry it took so long to continue; the internet connection at work was down for a few hours.

Anyway, continuing with the AK example, where my UTG opponent 3-bets the flop: Here, I can consider capping, if I think that means that he'll check the turn a considerable percentage of the time. The ONLY reason to cap is if I think it allows me to see a river/get to showdown cheaply. Capping the flop won't buy me any of the "good kind" of fold equity, and here is what I mean by that:

No hand that beats my hand is going to fold before showdown on this flop. The only hands that I have significant fold equity versus, are hands that I already beat. True, at this point (with a pot this big) folding out even a dominated hand like KQ starts to look good, but the number of times when I'm the one dominating pales in comparison to the number of times I'm on the other end of the stick.

As you can see, the conditions have to be near perfect for me to want to re-raise the flop to take a free card on the turn in a heads-up pot (multiway is a different animal altogether, on the other hand), and even in the cases where I might, it's still a close decision. Or, differently put, if your biggest leak is that you never raise the flop for a free river card in these situations, you'd probably be the biggest LHE winner in the world.

I hope all of that made sense. This is hardly trivial stuff, but it's core LHE thinking behind it. Being on the right side of equity/fold equity line is what it's all about.

ChuckTs said:

OK, so it's not just a way to get a free river card, but a way to get a cheap showdown when the pot's big?

Click to expand...

Right; it's the combination of those two that can make it profitable.

Because he's usually checking to us on the turn after we pump the flop? ie he'll most probably check-call a king turn if we've jammed the flop, but if we don't go nuts on the flop, he's more likely to keep leading with QQ/JJ on a king turn, right?

Click to expand...

Right.

As a sidenote, capping the flop may actually give you a pretty accurate read on his holding, since - and this is true in my experience vs. almost all non-maniac opponents - the only three hands he will lead the turn with after you cap the flop is AA-QQ, and sometimes JJ, unless there are overcards. AK and lower PPs will check to you on the turn, and monsters (i.e. sets) will also check in an attempt to checkraise you. So if he bets - it's a big PP. This read may not be accurate enough to not take AK to showdown in a huge pot, but against many opponents I can find a fold on the river if I don't improve.

This part really helped; there's no point in pumping the flop with 67s for a FD if we don't plan on betting the turn as well since that's when they'll most likely be folding. We'll also rarely fold out any hands on the river (should we choose to bet) unimproved since we took the flop raise/turn check line that doesn't exactly fit a monster.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

Thanks again FP; this is all very helpful to me and others, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Anytime!

FP, since you seem to have a grasp above and beyond most about fold equity, perhaps you could spend a few minutes to really make it simple.

I do not have even a minor grasp on the concept, and I will blame all the descriptions I have read about FE. They all are not telling me anything.

I have equity in my house, earlier in life I had equity in my career, then I had my career.

Balance the notion of equity with the adage that once you have put money into a pot, it is no longer yours, and mistaking that it is, is a mistake.

I am not as good on the uptake as I was years ago. It took me 2 years to begin to actually use pot odds, implied odds, et al in my decision making. I believe it was because I finally found a description that made sense to me.
One of the great things about a forum, is that it acts like a seminar, and that is that it allows multiple views of the same subject. Someone will describe it just right for me, whilst that description will go right over someone else's head.

This is the definition from Wikipedia. It doesn't help much.

Fold equity is a concept in poker strategy that is especially important when a player becomes short-stacked in a no limit (or possibly pot limit) tournament. It is the equity a player can consider him or herself likely to gain if he or she bets. It equates to:
(gain in equity if opponent(s) fold) X (likelihood that opponents fold)
The first half of the formula is known because it is whatever share of equity the folding opponent has. The second cannot be known but must be estimated based on reads or previous actions.
It becomes an important concept for short stacks for the following reason. Opponents can be considered likely to call all-ins with a certain range of hands. When they will have to use a large percentage of their stack to make the call, this range can be expected to be quite narrow (it will include all the hands the caller expects to win an all-in against the bettor). As the percentage of stack needed to call becomes lower, the range of cards the caller will need becomes wider, and he or she becomes less likely to fold. Consequently, fold equity diminishes. There will be a point at which a caller will need a sufficiently small percentage of their stack to call the all-in that they will do so with any two cards. At that point, the all-in bettor will have no fold equity.
Example Alice holds A6. She is heads up with Brian, who holds 22. The flop is 973 rainbow (no cards of the same suit). Alice has pot equity of 31.5%Brian has pot equity of 68.5% (In other words, if there was no further betting, and the players simply turned up their hands and were dealt the turn and river, Alice is 31.5% likely to win.) If Brian is 70% likely to fold, Alice's fold equity is 47.95% (68.5 x .7). Consequently, Alice can consider that her hand equity if she bets will equal 31.5 + 47.95%, almost 80%.

First you have to understand equity, dj. FP explains it nicely in his article here. He also explains fold equity here.

Fold equity is basically the equity your hand gains by betting. KQ may not be a favourite over A6 on a J94 flop (to use FP's example), but if we bet, we increase our chances of taking the pot down. Our bet there gave us fold equity.

It all made sense until the example. Because how do you know what your true equity is to make the assessment without knowing your opponents hole cards? sure you can put them on hands but it's very speculative. I've always thought it simpler to just say "have i got enough chips that if I smash them all in the middle this guy will seriously consider folding", you can make it more specific with a mathematical formula but knowing your type of opponent is a better bet.

I think with LHE the concept is limited other than to saying "will this guy fold to another bet", I don't see much room for the maths part. They'll either have something and call or have nothing and fold. Surely not profitable in the long run?

* I posted this at the same time as Chuck so I'm gonna read his links now *

F Paulsson said:

What I did was a blind steal. Nothing more, nothing less.


No. My flushdraw is not a favorite to win heads-up, therefore my bet is not for value and my 3-bet is definitely not for value. It's a semi-bluff.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that, my example was that in a multiway pot with position it is correct, I wouldn't bet this HU but then I wouldn't have picked up this hand in the first place without the callers. I would have just let go of my sb as I think in the long-term it is the more profitable (or least loss-making, whatever way you want to look at it) decision. If it was just a blind steal then why is it a good example of FE in LHE?

A blind steal is a perfect example of FE. You assume you probably have a worse hand than your opponent does; you steal, he folds. You added equity to your hand because you bet.

ChuckTs said:

A blind steal is a perfect example of FE. You assume you probably have a worse hand than your opponent does; you steal, he folds. You added equity to your hand because you bet.

Click to expand...

I know this, great NL tournament play. But we are talking about FL cash games, right?

Now I read one of your other posts saying that you wanted to spend some time playing FL to bring some discipline to your game and improve some post-flop plays. Good, I think FL will help you achieve those goals because FL favours TAG. But I think if that's what you want then you should start by ditching NL LAG moves like this one that just paid off because he hit a nice flop to back up his pf raise. What if he had 76 spades instead of clubs? then what? what if the guy had hit or had an over-pair and you didn't make the draw? or worse had the same draw as you but higher? how much can this potentially cost and for what? a small-bet blind steal?

DaFrench1 said:

I know this, great NL tournament play. But we are talking about FL cash games, right?

Click to expand...

Right. And, seriously, if your Attempt to Steal Blind % in PokerTracker is below 40% for fixed limit hold 'em, you're probably missing a lot of value.

Edit: To give an idea of what I'm talking about, this is 40%:

44+,A2s+,K2s+,Q4s+,J7s+,T7s+,97s+,87s,A3o+,K7o+,Q8o+,J8o+,T9o

Edit 2: I realize that someone will surely wonder how I can use that as an argument when 76s isn't even in there. But the 40% is the total ATSB%, including the cut-off position which will be considerably lower. From the SB, I recommend stealing more around 50% of the time, or with these hands:

33+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J4s+,T6s+,96s+,86s+,76s,65s,A2o+,K5o+,Q7o+,J7o+,T7o+,98o

DaFrench1 said:

I know this, great NL tournament play. But we are talking about FL cash games, right?

Now I read one of your other posts saying that you wanted to spend some time playing FL to bring some discipline to your game and improve some post-flop plays. Good, I think FL will help you achieve those goals because FL favours TAG. But I think if that's what you want then you should start by ditching NL LAG moves like this one that just paid off because he hit a nice flop to back up his pf raise. What if he had 76 spades instead of clubs? then what? what if the guy had hit or had an over-pair and you didn't make the draw? or worse had the same draw as you but higher? how much can this potentially cost and for what? a small-bet blind steal?

Click to expand...

While we have less FE in LHE when we make steals like this, it's still there. Your argument is a little silly, too. What if he had AA and we managed to see a flop where I flopped a flush and he flopped the nut flush draw, and I won a huge pot because he didn't hit?

What of all the times you have a better hand than him? What of all the times you push him off KJ and other better hands here?

The point is that FP is confident enough in his abilities to be able to outplay his opponent postflop to play 76s here. I myself don't steal with hands like this because my table conditions would rarely favor it since they're so loose.

ChuckTs said:

While we have less FE in LHE when we make steals like this, it's still there. Your argument is a little silly, too. What if he had AA and we managed to see a flop where I flopped a flush and he flopped the nut flush draw, and I won a huge pot because he didn't hit?

What of all the times you have a better hand than him? What of all the times you push him off KJ and other better hands here?

The point is that FP is confident enough in his abilities to be able to outplay his opponent postflop to play 76s here. I myself don't steal with hands like this because my table conditions would rarely favor it since they're so loose.

Click to expand...

It's not the only argument though because of the position, you now also have to c-bet into the flop blind other than knowing you were called. So the situation is always going to be 2 bets to try and win 1, or if called 3 bets to try and win 2, and with a marginal hand. I just don't like this play at all. Maybe from the button or the CO. I just don't think it was a good example to use to demonstrate the proposed concept. Always interesting to see how people play different styles though.

It works out like this:

Before the flop, one of three things can happen:

1. He folds,
2. He calls,
3. He raises.

Typical numbers for these three are
1. 25%
2. 60%
3. 15%

In order to actually see if it's a winning play, we need to have an idea of what my equity is if called or raised. PokerStove says 76s is 40% to win vs. a 60% range (if called), and 35% to win if raised. Now it's easy to calculate EV for the raise:

The pot is 1,5SB when it's folded to me.
25% of 1,5 (when he folds) is 0.375SB.

He calls 60% of the time, at which point I've paid 1.5 SBs extra to see a flop, and I'll only win back 40% of that: 0.40 * 4 - 1.5 = 1.6 - 1.5 = 0.1 (I'm still showing a profit even here!)

Finally, the point at which I'm in trouble: When I'm raised.
Then, I'm only 35% to win, and I've put in 2.5 SBs: 0.35 * 6 - 2.5 = 2.1 - 2.5 = -0.4

EV = 0.375 + 0.1 - 0.4 = +0.075.

And this is despite given my fairly conservative numbers for the BBs' tendencies vs. a steal. In reality, this particular BB folds his BB 40% of the time to steal attempts, making this play nowhere even close to "marginal."

Now, having looked only at the raw EV, it's worth pointing out that if you don't feel comfortable in playing better than your opponents after the flop, then a winning situation may become a loser for you. For me versus most opponents at my tables, this is not the case.

OK. I like that answer a hell of a lot better. So much that I plan to now heed your wise words and incorporate it more in my play. I'll let you know how I get on .