Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weird hand from Nottingham

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Matt Matros wrote that article originally I think.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by dannydiamond View Post
      This sums it up perfectly.
      Originally posted by Midnitekowby View Post
      reverse of this happened to me 1st time i played main @ wsop. day4 pre bubble, sum guys called clock on me after literally 10secs, he wasnt even in the hand, i called him a donut...td came over to ban me an orbit of the table,i refused to leave..

      He consulted with higher up td who said "Sir u have to leave for an orbit for personally abusing another player"...i told him i didnt abuse him...he said "you called seat 8 a donkey" i told him i called him a donut, which was a term of enderment in Ireland...they were momentarily stunned, then laughed and just gave me warning, i turned around in seat and action was on me in sb,with table waiting on me, i look down at aq and raised. bb folds and i show him the aq, cause i planned on robbing him blind as bubble approached...

      Then i notice a limper in mid pos, both Tds are still watching this and with great delight tell me ill be fined my orbit of table now, but can proceed with hand....I know that if that limper repopped me then that id have done the exact same and jammed the whole farm back at him, instead he flatted....alllowing me to see only 3 cards, i whiff, he bets and takes down the pot....easy + best way to play it imo

      but ya agree with smoothcall there, u gotta have a plan here + if ur raising, cant raise fold. Your just creating better odds for you to make the call and then folding?
      +1 here

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Frossach View Post
        +1 here
        sorry wrong quote

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by smoothcall View Post
          hmm assumed the answer would be something like that.

          There is now 10k dead in the pot, so your getting a good price to flip. Basically when you raise you should know what your doing if he shoves, and if your going to fold you shouldnt have raised. By doing what you did it's giving up a good spot, so who knows how many more of these magical spots are available.
          Originally posted by dannydiamond View Post
          This sums it up perfectly.
          this one

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by The C Kid View Post
            Matt Matros wrote that article originally I think.
            Yeah, it was Matt Matros and was in cardplayer around 2006.

            edit: Googled it
            Vol. 18, No. 12 of Card Player Magazine, featuring a cover story about Raising the Bar - With Five Final-Table Appearances in 2005, the Current Player of the Year Leader, John Phan is Lighting It Up. This was published on Jun 28, 05

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by EssEll View Post
              Option 1: Fold
              EV = 0

              Option 2: Call and bet if he misses the flop
              He will hit flop about 36% of the time (right?) – assume he bets and we fold: -1300 x 36% = -468
              We will bet 64% of the time and he will mostly fold: +2400 x 64% = +1536
              Sometimes he will call when he misses the flop – that will add some value to this option. Ignoring that value, the EV of this option is +1068

              Option 3: Raise to 5k
              Have to guess some probabilities here – lets say he will fold / call / push 1/3rd of the time each
              If he folds: +2400/3 = 800
              If he calls, we are back to the same scenario as 1: -4700 x 36% = -1692, +5800 x 64% = 3712 => +2020 if he calls.... divide by 3 for probability that he calls = 673 (plus of course more if we think he will still call out of stubbornness)
              If he pushes and we fold that’s -4700 / 3 = -1567 which brings the total EV of raising into negative territory (conclusion based on this: do not raise if you won’t call a shove!)
              If he pushes and we call, we are 55% to take the lot: -47700 x 45%, +46400 x 55% = 4055... divide by 3 = 1352
              Overall EV of raising: +2825

              Overall conclusion... go ahead and raise unless you suffer from TLS (which you do ) (in which case call)
              Good post, it really is just a case of working out the individual ev of each situation and find which one is best. The ideal senario is we raise, he calls and we take down the pot on the flop. I dont think calling pre is a good enough way to take advantage of his situation at all, we should use the free info to exploit him and the best way to do this is to reraise.
              "Don't overcomplicate a straight forward game with mathematical bullshit and dicussing different lines with your geeky friends" Chris Olaafson

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by Mellor View Post
                Yeah, it was Matt Matros and was in cardplayer around 2006.

                edit: Googled it
                http://www.cardplayer.com/cardplayer...mit-hold-39-em
                Can anybody do a copy/paste of this for me please? Wouldn't mind reading it again, can't get on Cardplayer in work...

                Comment


                  #68
                  SPOILER
                  People misuse aggressiveness. They hear the advice, "Play aggressive poker," and translate it to, "Bluff a lot." Aggressiveness is a lot more than bluffing. Too many players are aggressive by putting in a lot of money with their weak or mediocre hands, but slow-playing their other hands. They even get passive with big hands like A-K, wanting to "look at a flop." This approach is often a recipe for disaster. In this column, I'm going to explain why I think A-K is usually a reraising hand in no-limit hold'em.

                  Let's say the under-the-gun (UTG) player has raised to three times the big blind at a ninehanded no-limit hold'em table. Three players fold and you look down at A-K offsuit. You have 15 big blinds in front of you. What's your play? Lots of players tell me it's their "style" to just call there and take a peek at the flop. "And if I hit my hand," they say, "I'm going with it."

                  Here is some quick mathematics to show why I think this is bad strategy. First, note that A-K offsuit will miss the flop about two-thirds of the time. So, presumably, we're mucking to a bet on the flop almost two-thirds of the time. I'll allow for some bluff-raises with gutshot draws from us or for the occasional check-fold from the UTG player, and say that we will have to muck on the flop about 60 percent of the time. Next, let's assign the UTG player a typical UTG range of hands – pocket pairs of sevens or higher, A-Q, A-K, A-J suited.
                  If we hit the flop with our A-K, pocket pairs of 7-7 through Q-Q hate the flop (unless they flopped a set). They'll bet out a lot of the time – say, 75 percent of the time, anyway – trying to represent top pair, but they'll almost always stop putting money in the pot after we give them action.

                  So, let's do the math. When we cold-call with our A-K preflop, 60 percent of the time we lose just the three big blinds it cost us to call; 10 percent of the time or so, we hit the flop and our opponent check-folds. We win four and a half big blinds (our opponent's raise, plus the blinds who folded before the flop). The other 30 percent of the time is when our opponent bets and we've hit the flop.
                  If we look at the range of hands we've given him, and assume that he calls our raise only with a set, an overpair, or top pair, we'll see that on about 8 percent of flops, both of us end up all in. On those flops, we have 40 percent equity ("equity" is a term I covered in my last column). That's right – if our opponent actually wants to get all in with us, we're an underdog to win the pot. On 22 percent of flops, he bets out and folds to our raise. Let's say he chooses to bet out four and a half big blinds. In that case, we win nine big blinds on the hand (the four and a half from his bet, the three from his preflop raise, and the one and a half from the blinds that folded preflop).


                  Add up all of the big blinds we win or lose in every possible scenario, and you'll find out that cold-calling with A-K against that UTG player's raise wins about 0.4 big blinds per hand in the long run, which is not bad. But A-K is supposed to be a big hand. We're not supposed to be satisfied with winning less than a small blind with it.
                  Now let's compare flat-calling to the play I recommend – moving all in preflop. If we move in (jam), I'm going to assume that the UTG player mucks his sevens, eights, nines, A-J suited, and A-Q offsuit, but calls us with A-Q suited, A-K, and pairs of tens or higher. If we look at the money we win when he folds, compared to the money we lose when he calls, it turns out that in the long run, we earn 1.2 big blinds per hand by jamming with A-K – triple what we earned by calling.


                  The biggest reason it works out this way is that we got the UTG player to fold a whopping 45 percent of the time preflop when we moved in. If you don't believe that, what hands do you think he calls with that I have him folding? A-Q, nines, and eights? If he calls with all of those hands, jamming is still almost twice as good as calling. By moving all in, we give ourselves something called fold equity. We have two kinds of equity: our equity in the pot against our opponent's range of hands in a showdown, and our equity in picking up money for free by getting our opponent to fold before the showdown.
                  Let's go inside the numbers from the above calculations a bit. When we moved in preflop, the UTG player folded 45 percent of the time, and we won four and a half big blinds. The other 55 percent of the time, we lost a little – about one and a half big blinds. As you can see, this was easily offset by the times we picked up the four and a half big blinds without a fight. Also notice that when our opponent had tens, jacks, or queens, we won the hand about 43 percent of the time. If we had just called, we would've won the hand less than 30 percent of the time. This is because A-K wants to see all five cards. A-K offsuit has a 43 percent shot to beat two queens by the river, but only a 31 percent chance to be beating two queens after the flop. We need to give ourselves a chance to spike an ace on the turn or the river – and if we hit an ace at any point, we want to get paid. We won't get paid if our opponent has an underpair on an ace-high flop and we still have money in front of us. That's why it's important to get the money in before the flop.


                  You could nitpick the argument I just made. You might say, for example, that I ignored the rest of the players in the hand. But I would say that we want all of those players to fold, and the best way to get them out is to move all in. You also might say that some players will open from UTG with A-5 offsuit and play badly enough to lose all of their chips on an ace-high flop, or even a king-high flop. I would say that if the player is that bad, you're probably way ahead of him preflop and want to isolate right then and there.
                  Here is the central point: With hands that want to reach a showdown, like A-K preflop, or a straight-flush draw with two cards to come, it's important to get money into the pot as soon as possible. The more money there is in the pot, the harder it is to fold, and the more likely you are to get your showdown. So, don't be one of those passive A-K players. Learn to love the words, "I'm all in."


                  Matt Matros finished third in the 2004 World Poker Tour Championship, and cashed four other times in major tournaments last year. His book, The Making of a Poker Player.
                  Pining for Wa'erford

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Line Us View Post
                    Good post, it really is just a case of working out the individual ev of each situation and find which one is best. The ideal senario is we raise, he calls and we take down the pot on the flop. I dont think calling pre is a good enough way to take advantage of his situation at all, we should use the free info to exploit him and the best way to do this is to reraise.
                    I disagree, that he does each option 1/3 of the time though. I'd say call is way lower. something more like fold 40% shove 45%, call 15% imo.

                    Still don't mind raising, but as the dokester said, avoiding high variance situations in good structured soft field is a good plan. So calling might be the better option

                    Comment


                      #70
                      That's not the article I was talking about (still good).

                      The article I was thinking of specifically talks about a situation where we have QQ and are faced with a decision for all our chips in the first hand of a deep tournament with the opponent having exposed AK.

                      He speaks about how often we chip up to 2x starting stack by calling, vs the probability that we'll be able to do the same gradually throughout the next x levels. He somehow equates this to skill level, showing that the vast majority of players have a smaller edge over the field than the edge they give up by refusing the flip in the first hand.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by smoothcall View Post
                        I disagree, that he does each option 1/3 of the time though. I'd say call is way lower. something more like fold 40% shove 45%, call 15% imo.

                        Still don't mind raising, but as the dokester said, avoiding high variance situations in good structured soft field is a good plan. So calling might be the better option
                        Ya I think 1/3 is a bit off too, its more the fact that he worked out each scenario to get an answer rather than saying call and cbet without checking whis is actually better. Gonna steal some of EssEll's maths here(done this quick so hopefully no errors!) for your guesstimates of his frequencies.

                        If we raise to 5k and he folds 40% of the time.
                        +2500 * .40 = +1000

                        If he calls:: -4700 x 36% = -1692, +5800 x 64% = 3712 => +2020 * 0.15 = + 303

                        If he pushes and we call: -47700 x 45%, +46400 x 55% = 4055 *0.45 = 1823

                        Overall EV of raising: +3127


                        I take your point though, that this early, there is not a need to take the high variance line but the fact is that it is ++ev to raise even with your estimates(I'd argue that he calls more often than 15% and shoves less). Also this is unlikely to happen to anyone reading this again so the thread probably isn't that useful at all really and we are arguing over a marginal difference in ev in a very rare spot. I think the main point of the thread is call pre or raise and snap call his shove, the only way to play the hand badly is to raise fold.
                        "Don't overcomplicate a straight forward game with mathematical bullshit and dicussing different lines with your geeky friends" Chris Olaafson

                        Comment


                          #72
                          ye true that this situation is rare and probably wont ever occur to yourself. But what people should take from the thread is

                          - you should have a plan, e.g what are you going to do if he raises

                          - you should think of all options.

                          If anyone takes either of them into consideration theyve learnt a lot.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by Keane View Post
                            That's not the article I was talking about (still good).
                            Yeah you're right. I was talking about the samne article as you. I pasted the wrong link.

                            Vol. 18, No. 22 of Card Player Magazine, featuring a cover story about Allen Cunningham's Weird Knack - A Serious Student of the Game, One of Poker's Young Veterans Just Keeps Getting Better. This was published on Nov 15, 05


                            SPOILER

                            To Flip or Not to Flip
                            It's the first day of a five-figure buy-in no-limit hold'em tournament. You've gotten a good night's sleep. You feel alert.

                            You wade through all the railbirds and all the media and finally locate your seat. Just as you do, the tournament director announces, "Shuffle up and deal!" It's your big blind, and you toss two of your green chips onto the felt. You've now got $9,950 in chips in your stack. Everyone folds around to the small blind, who shoves all in for $10,000. You haven't even taken your chip protector out of your pocket yet, but you figure you probably won't need it on this hand. You're going to fold, unless you look down at aces. But there's a problem. The small blind doesn't have a protector on his cards, either, and when he looks down at them one more time, he accidentally exposes his hand. He has the A K. You look down at your hand, and find two black queens. You've done your research. You know you have a 53.8 percent chance of winning if you call. But should you?

                            This is a classic hypothetical question, and it creates raging arguments almost every time it's discussed. I believe there is a right answer to this question, one that doesn't depend on how skillful the player is, or what the player is hoping to get from the tournament. I hope by the end of this column that I will have convinced you.

                            First, let's look at the common arguments I hear for folding:

                            (1) If you're a good player, you want to use your skill to find a better spot to get your chips in.

                            (2) You don't want to risk your entire tournament on one hand, especially in a coin-flip situation.

                            (3) I don't play these big buy-in tournaments very often, so I want to get some experience playing them.

                            In case you haven't guessed, I strongly believe all of these arguments are specious. Here's a quick thought experiment: Let's say you're playing in a tournament with 1,024 people. How do you win this tournament? By getting all the chips, of course! This means that if you calculate your chances of doubling up 10 times, you will calculate your chances of winning the event. Now let's say that you have a 53.8 percent chance of doubling up whenever you get all in for your stack. This means that your chance of winning the tournament is .538 to the 10th power, or about 0.203 percent. The average player's chance of winning the tournament is 1÷1,024, or about 0.098 percent. So, if you consistently get your chips in with a 53.8 percent chance of winning, you will be more than twice as likely as an average player to win the event. It gets better.

                            Let's say you choose to fold the queens, thinking you have a better than 53.8 percent chance to double up in this event. If you decline the "coin flip," you're stuck with your initial starting stack, as you're expecting to have a better than 53.8 percent chance of doubling up at some point later in the tournament. If you accept, and win, the coin toss, you double up immediately.

                            You need to estimate, then, the expected value (EV) of your brand-new $20,000 stack size at a later point in the tournament - the hypothetical point at which you'd eventually double up after declining the "coin flip." Let's reasonably (conservatively, actually) say that when you double up right away, your stack will be worth $22,000 at that hypothetical future point at which you would've found your better spot.

                            It's time to do the math. If taking the "coin flip" gives you a 53.8 percent chance to have a stack of $22,000 later in the tournament, how likely do you have to be to double up later in order to fold your pocket queens? Well, you can answer that by solving this equation: x(20,000) = (.538)(22,000).

                            Do the algebra and you get x = .5918, or 59.18 percent. So, do you think you're good enough to have a 59.18 percent chance of doubling up later on? If you said yes, you're wrong. Go back to our thought experiment. If you could consistently have a 59.18 percent chance of doubling up, you'd win a 1,024-player tournament more than five times as often as an average player. Trust me, you're not that good. I don't think it's possible to be that good. I'm certainly not that good.

                            Here's one more way to look at it: Let's say you're a very good player. You win a no-limit hold'em tournament twice as often as an average player - which is a spectacular rate. You win the 1,024-player tournament one time in 512. Now we can work backward and figure out our chance of doubling up. We do this by solving the equation 1÷512 = (chance of doubling up) to the 10th power.

                            And we get the chance of doubling up, .536, or 53.6 percent (note that this is smaller than the chance of your two queens beating the A-K suited).

                            Using the same equation as above, it turns out that we would take any edge greater than 48.63 percent. Yes, that's right. I just made the argument that very good players should actually take slightly negative EV situations early in a tournament, because if they win the hand, they get to use their skill with their new stack. And that's more important than waiting around for a slightly better situation - much more important. Have you seen a lot of successful players using the "get chips or go broke" strategy early? This is part of the reason why.

                            Some say calling with the queens would amount to a good player letting his skill go to waste. Here's the thing about poker - the skill is about finding edges. And edges are precious. Think about it; on most hands, we fold before the flop. It's very hard to find a way to get our chips in profitably. And here, we have a known edge. We know that in the long run, we'll earn $810 by calling with the Q-Q. That's not a small edge. Folding here would be akin to flushing an hour's work down the toilet. Calling here doesn't negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field.

                            You don't want to risk your whole tournament on one hand? Then you shouldn't be in the tournament. The only question you should be asking yourself is, "Will I make more money in the long run by calling here?" And even if it's "the experience" you're after, wouldn't the experience of a final-table run be much more valuable than the experience of playing for a day or so and then busting out near the bubble?

                            If you don't believe all of this math mumbo jumbo, I suggest a little record-keeping experiment. For every tournament you play, write down whether you double your stack or bust out before doing so. I did this for a little while, and I doubled up 67 times in 127 tournaments. That's about 52.8 percent of the time. I think that's pretty good! If, after a thousand tournaments, you find that you're doubling up more than 59 percent of the time or so, congratulations - you might be good enough to fold queens in the above situation. In the meantime, stick to getting your chips in with an edge. That's how poker tournaments are won in real life

                            Originally posted by Line Us View Post
                            If we raise to 5k and he folds 40% of the time.
                            +2500 * .40 = +1000

                            If he calls:: -4700 x 36% = -1692, +5800 x 64% = 3712 => +2020 * 0.15 = + 303

                            If he pushes and we call: -47700 x 45%, +46400 x 55% = 4055 *0.45 = 1823

                            Overall EV of raising: +3127
                            I don't think an EV calc sees the whole picture.
                            Basically, we have a c.10% edge. So the situation with the highest +EV is when we ship and he calls 100% of the time. As here we apply the whole 10% to our whole stack.
                            But while its probably the most profitable action, its also very high variance, and it also gives up the advantage we have over knowing his cards.

                            In terms of effective utility (as opposed EV), calling is much better as it allows us to paly perfect post flop. The risk or ruin is either 0%, if he folds when he missesd, or as very low when he gambles on the flop (and here our all-in EV is much higher than above)

                            Comment


                              #74
                              YOU CAN SEE HIS CARDS

                              People seem to be missing this fact (not everyone to be fair)

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Stumbled across this video and somehow it reminded me of this thread

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  Originally posted by JamieCarra View Post
                                  Stumbled across this video and somehow it reminded me of this thread
                                  no linkage

                                  Comment


                                    #77
                                    Originally posted by Laois Hammer View Post
                                    no linkage
                                    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKsV6oqZW38&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
                                    Pining for Wa'erford

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      Originally posted by Laois Hammer View Post
                                      no linkage
                                      d'oh, I'm an idiot,

                                      anyway, the one sligboi posted above was it anyway

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X