Change of Essays

For those interested, we have dropped six essays from our essay page and replaced them with ones not previously posted here. Just click on the Essays link under Directory in the left hand column.


Mason

This is the first time I read part two, though I assumed it would have something to say about hand reading. And it reminded me of something I have noticed in my own play, that might be useful to others. The thing is complementing good face-to-face reading skills with good use of Bayes Theorem.


First, I remember when I used to make a lot of errors calling or raising back against people who flopped flushes, and I didn't believe them. It seemed just too improbable, more likely they were just being tricky, shorthanded players. Obviously, the reason it was shorthanded was because all the other players had the sense to fold.


Then there are straights - and particularly non-connected straights - which can be tough to know where to call them as made or not using stats, you have to use how the hand was played, and a lot of psychology. But I generally made fewer errors calling and raising against straights than flushes for some reason.


Anyway, the net result of these errors which occurred primarily on the flop and on the turn (by the river, it's obvious), was my not being aggressive enough against dangerous pair and set cards that hit on the river. Meaning, no matter how a person looks or acts, or how the hand was played, you have to rely on the math that it didn't hit them.


So anyway, my comment is that I actually think it is worth maybe a big bet an hour to me to raise against a scary baord where most people wouldn't, not because I am watching the player, or based on how the hand was played, but just using Bayes Theorem. You just have to close your eyes and bet.


And my question, then, is can anybody comment on the mathematics of why scary flush cards seem to come without alternative reads, scary straight cards seem about as advertised, and scary pair and set cards (exclusing low-kicker-turned-pair cards, which are obvious) aren't as likely to be the correct read?


eLROY

Mason,


I like the changes /images/smile.gif Good essay. I just read both of your essays and they were very good. I guess I'm becoming a reasonable hold-em player because I thought your read in the hold em article of AJ was very obvious.


Your stud discussion was great too. Yes, you have to be afraid when AKJs is raised. But, I still might have to bet into opponent again on 6th. If opponent is an aggressive player, he won't raise me with 4 clubs and a pair, but would certainly raise me with two pair. Guess I have to judge whether it's more likely the opponent has the flush or two pair (or trips). Without a spade out, I might be tempted to fold to a raise, judging a flush to be much more likely than trips (the only other raising hand).


I once lost a large pot that way. Opponent had 3 open suited and had been raising. I made a hidden straight on 6th, and instead of betting, played for a check raise in a 3 way pot to make it bigger with the intention of folding to a reraise (I didn't give him a flush). He did reraise, but only because he misread my hand and proudly showed me trips, saying I made a good fold (not sarcastically).


Oh well, can't be right all the time /images/smile.gif