A quick note about "rareness" of bets

[Ed Miller]

I don't plan to address (or read) the whole long thread. I did want to discuss this idea, though:

VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.

To prove this to yourself, you can view any set of bets as a single bet with many possible outcomes. For instance, say you flip a coin three times. For each time it comes heads, you win $1. Each time it comes tails, you lose a $1.

Instead of looking at it as three different bets, you can view it as a single bet with eight possible outcomes. That is, if it comes HHH, you win $3. HHT, and you win $1. Etc. There is no difference in "profitability" whether you view it as a series of N independent "common" bets, or one "rare" bet with 2^N possible outcomes.

Likewise, your bankroll doesn't care what game you are playing, or what situation came up. All it cares is that you made a bet with an EV of +$X/wager with a std. dev. of $Y/wager. It doesn't care if that wager was made at faro or tiddle-e-winks.

Hell, if it were true that "rareness" makes bets unprofitable, then no one would ever win at sports betting. After all, each game is completely unique. You will NEVER have another opportunity to bet on last week's Dolphins game.

Finally, you guys are way too worried in general about the relationship between EV and variance in limit poker. While it is extremely important that you avoid overbetting your bankroll on thin edges in sports, blackjack, or the stock market, you just don't have to worry about it at limit poker (obviously, provided you have a bankroll of a few hundred bets). As has been pointed out, the opportunity to make these super thin wagers just doesn't come up often enough to worry about it. The large majority of you guys will end up doing much better in the long run if you simply IGNORE THE WHOLE THING and make any play if you think it is +EV. Again, this recommendation is only for playing limit poker with a bankroll of several hundred bets. (If you want to learn more about the relationship between EV, variance, and bankroll, google 'Kelly Criterion'.)

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.

If you aren't having negative swings that large, then what are you worried about?

[bonanz]

THE CHAMP IS HERE!

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.


[/ QUOTE ]

My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

This is a serious question, not a jab at you or either one?

My guess is I'm sure they made some, as we all do, but I really wonder if they were making more than normal or just a horrible string of luck.

[sin808]

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys find yourself having negative swings

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but the phrasing would imply to me that he means multiple, or regularly.

[GuyOnTilt]

Hey Ed,

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.

You're pretty much wrong on this one. Like Kick already mentioned, there are players on these boards who are beating a game for over 3bb/100 (I assume Gambler is, though I don't know for certain) who have gone through the type of downswings you mention. The worst I've experienced so far is -300 BB's, though I fully expect to have a 400 big bet loss if game conditions stay the same. I've dropped over 80 BB's in 30 minutes in that game; that's just the way it is. It doesn't take "lots of -EV mistakes" to do.

BTW, El Diablo has also gone through a 400 BB downswing too.

GoT

[Ed Miller]

My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

1. They are playing in games that are generally tougher and more aggressive than the micro and small games the target audience of my post is playing. I would be very surprised if either of those guys would experience a 400 bet downswing in the $1-$2 games most of you guys are playing. FWIW, I've never played with 1800, but I have played with GuyOnTilt, and he is a very good player.

2. They may play a lot of shorthanded games. The rules for shorthanded are a little different because you end up in marginal situations a whole lot more frequently.

Here's my real point. Poker players tend to think they "know better." They've played a few years, they've won a few bucks, and they start to think that their way is the right way. When someone comes and tells them that actually they have been misplaying certain situations, the natural response is, "No I haven't."

On this forum, people generally don't say, "Ed, you're wrong." Instead, they say, "Well, Ed's plays are really OPTIONAL. They are only for those who want to get every last cent. I'm happy with my 95% optimal strategy, and, hey, this way I won't have downswings that are as bad."

In other words, they use these EV/variance arguments as a JUSTIFICATION for making mistakes. They say to themselves, "It's not a mistake, it's just a choice I make."

Well, there are some plays that can be made for EV/variance reasons. David discusses these in essays in some of his books. For instance, he recommends that if you are "taking a shot" at a juicy high-limit game that you tighten up some preflop. In a spot where you might play K6s on the button, don't play it if you are deliberately playing higher than your bankroll can handle.

But for the most part, this EV/variance argument is employed when someone is making an error and simply doesn't want to change/doesn't quite believe that he's wrong.

Most of you guys play small anyway. You play $0.50-$1, $1-2, $2-$4, etc. If you lose a few hundred bets, who cares? Spend an afternoon mowing lawns and you'll have a brand new bankroll. Use this time that you are playing small to learn to play CORRECTLY. Don't make excuses. Force yourself to make some plays that are uncomfortable for you. Try them again. Get some experience.

I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not being nit-picky. If I put it in the book.. particularly if I backed it up with an example.. it's IMPORTANT. Make sure you absolutely 100% understand a concept before you start selectively ignoring it. Don't just dismiss it as "too high variance."

BTW, this is why I included the "Don't alter these recommendations for your own reasons. Chances are you'll be wrong and it will cost you money," line. It's not because I think I'm never wrong.

A statement like that doesn't apply to someone who understands poker better than I do like Roy Cooke... or the many mid-limit posters on this site like snakehead, Gabe, El Diablo, Clarkmeister, etc.

It's directed at the guy who has played for a few years, won a few bucks, and thinks that he generally plays a near-perfect game. Most of those guys make tons of mistakes... and they might actually get better if they'd just listen. But a lot of those guys will read the book, see a lot of stuff that doesn't jive with how they play, and say, "That Miller guy. He's an idiot. He has no idea what he's talking about." My statement was just a little extra warning not to leave the book with that opinion.

[Ed Miller]

You're pretty much wrong on this one. Like Kick already mentioned, there are players on these boards who are beating a game for over 3bb/100 (I assume Gambler is, though I don't know for certain) who have gone through the type of downswings you mention.

The 400 number isn't the important point. Maybe I should have said 500 instead. My point is that if you want to make a lot of money playing poker, you just have to play the "high-variance" style. If you "I want to keep my variance down" yourself all the time, your winrate will drop a ton.

[Ulysses]

Two things.

1) I've posted a number of times re: how much people underestimate the swings in these games. See my latest post re: Gonores' challenge and his variance. I think a 400BB downstreak is definitely possible for a 3BB/100 winner in these aggro online games, especially the SH ones. This actually goes hand-in-hand w/ Ed's point. To maximize earn, you push all the thin edges and play a pretty high variance style. With that comes an occassional brutal streak.

2) Every time I've had a 200BB+ downswing (and I've had a few), it has always involved an "unreal" streak of really bad luck, but is usually augmented with some pretty bad play at times along the way. Mini-tilts of 20BB here and there plus some missed bets at times can easily turn a 150BB run of bad cards into a 250BB disaster. So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

[GuyOnTilt]

So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

Phew. At first glance I thought you were going to call me a liar. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

GoT

[imitation]

But you all agree that moving to a new limit which has a significantly different playing texture it is preferrable to err on the lower side of variance, until one is comfortable with where pushing in places where an edge truely does exist?

[Smasharoo]

So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.


I think that's the real basis of the critique of small +EV plays, allthough no one's phrased it as such. Does the long term earn outweigh the short term negative psychological consequences of a down session due to variance for the average SSH player?

[Blarg]

Unanswerable question because there's no such thing as an average person.

Also, the possibly psychologically negative outcome of pushing your edges and not having it pay off ties directly to the financially negative results of that happening. Big games or small, the swings are something that probably most people don't handle well because financial setbacks going hand-in-hand with psychological ones makes for a nasty mix. And people really DO care about their 100 or 200 BB lost at 1/2 or 2/4 as well, and for some people that really is a substantial amount of money. So pushing small +EV edges can result in dramatic psychological and financial outcomes.

However, poker is cruel and doesn't give a damn about you or anyone else. You simply have to suck it up if you want to maximize your profit, and the more thin edges you push, the more you have to suck it up when things go bad. However, that's the price you pay for success. If you want to pay less of a price, you have to give up a lot of potential success too.

You have to pay a definite price for being unsually successful in poker. You can't just play the way you want to play; you have to play well.

[cnfuzzd]

who is this person that allows poker to affect him emotionally, and why is he still playing?

peace

john nickle

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a full size ring game of 10 players, I find 400 bets to be too extreme of an amount to lose. I would even find 300 big bets to be too extreme.

Short handed I know it's a different story.

[Lawrence Ng]

Ed,

I understand fully what you are trying to explain here and I think it makes complete sense. But still, even with a solid big bankroll, let's say a 500 BB bankroll, wouldn't pushing thin edges with sligh +EV be too risky? I tend to think of it as a reward vs. risk factor and the risk factor is too high given the reward.

I can see how this would compare to a casino that houses a game that perhaps only has a slight edge (say 5%). But the house has an almost infinite bankroll and thus can sustain long term risk, or one that is very close. But say some super rich tycoon comes along and decides to gamble in the millions. This is going heavily influence the house's bankroll even though the house has a thin edge on the player.

So if I have 500 BB bankroll, and I keep pushing these thin edges as you describe it's going to effect my bankroll if things run bad in short or medium run. And given the nature of many loose low limit games bordering on lag most of the time, it's not that uncommon I think to to take a dip in the bankroll.

I don't know all the math behind this, but on any given week if I were push such thin edges and drop a good 100 - 150 BB running bad, then would the possible slight +EV gained offset the amount/risk I put forth? I don't think it's worth it so, but I could be wrong.

I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see how this would compare to a casino that houses a game that perhaps only has a slight edge (say 5%). But the house has an almost infinite bankroll and thus can sustain long term risk, or one that is very close. But say some super rich tycoon comes along and decides to gamble in the millions. This is going heavily influence the house's bankroll even though the house has a thin edge on the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad analogy. The casino scenarios have wildly different variance due to the difference in betting units. You don't get that choice in limit poker.

EDIT: The casino analogy, taken to limit poker, would be to move down in stakes so that your total variance decreases vis-a-vis your total bankroll.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
has a slight edge (say 5%).


[/ QUOTE ]

isn't 5% a huge edge? is there any casino game where the house has that high an advantage?

--turnipmonster

[Freudian]

That is a good point. If the swings get so wild that a) you have to move down in limit more often or b) have to have a much larger BR (which is the same as being forced to play at a lower limit) how does that impact the situation?

With infinite money and infinite time it is easier to argue that you should take razor thin +EV situations.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
isn't 5% a huge edge? is there any casino game where the house has that high an advantage?
--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch, most notably American roulette (with "0" and "00"), sports betting, money-wheel games, some slots and video poker, assorted craps bets, custom table games like Sic Bo, and most egregiously keno, whose house edge is generally in the 20-30% range.

Wizard of Odds (http://www.wizardofodds.com) is an awesome resource for stuff like this. Here's a page (http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/houseadv.html) detailing the house advantage of a bunch of games--and this is all assuming perfect play if skill is involved.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused. If you're not pushing thin edges, you're not maximizing your EV.

[mistrpug]

Ed, thank you so much for this post. It makes me cringe when I hear people use rareness as an excuse to pass up small EV+ situations.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I did want to discuss this idea, though:

VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit of a tangent but I wanted to ask this anyways.

Ed, does this concept apply when the bets are very large relative to bankroll? I learned about risk-aversion in Econ class and to me, this would be the perfect example of it. I know we weren't talking about huge games and stuff (just the usual 1/2 games we play), but IF we were talking about huge life-savings type bets, even if it were +EV, wouldn't it still be correct to pass it up?

[dogmeat]

"Most of you guys play small anyway. You play $0.50-$1, $1-2, $2-$4, etc. If you lose a few hundred bets, who cares? Spend an afternoon mowing lawns and you'll have a brand new bankroll."

Ed, I think SSHE is terrific, and your theories are as strong as David's. I think your explainations are direct and to the point. Thank you.

I now see the same arrogance, conceit, and dismissal in your posts as I often see in David's. You must be very proud. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a good point. If the swings get so wild that a) you have to move down in limit more often or b) have to have a much larger BR (which is the same as being forced to play at a lower limit) how does that impact the situation?

With infinite money and infinite time it is easier to argue that you should take razor thin +EV situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting this wrong. The variance in limit poker is already high enough where pushing small EV situations isn't changing it much. The situations in Ed's book that get everyone's panties twisted--like raising a possible second best hand in a huge pot--is costing an extra bet or two. If your bankroll can't handle 2-3 BBs to slightly improve your chances of winning 15-20 BBs, you're playing too big already.

[Ed Miller]

I know we weren't talking about huge games and stuff (just the usual 1/2 games we play), but IF we were talking about huge life-savings type bets, even if it were +EV, wouldn't it still be correct to pass it up?

Yes. This is the principle behind the Kelly Criterion.

[Ed Miller]

I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.

My point is that in LIMIT poker, these Kelly-overbetting situations just don't come up often enough to worry about. That's because there is a cap on how much you are allowed to bet.

If the amount you can bet is unlimited, then you have to be careful about comparing the size of your edge to the size of your bankroll and sizing correct. (Again, read up on the Kelly Criterion.) But in LIMIT poker, it's really not a pressing concern.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.

To prove this to yourself, you can view any set of bets as a single bet with many possible outcomes. For instance, say you flip a coin three times. For each time it comes heads, you win $1. Each time it comes tails, you lose a $1.

Instead of looking at it as three different bets, you can view it as a single bet with eight possible outcomes. That is, if it comes HHH, you win $3. HHT, and you win $1. Etc. There is no difference in "profitability" whether you view it as a series of N independent "common" bets, or one "rare" bet with 2^N possible outcomes.

Likewise, your bankroll doesn't care what game you are playing, or what situation came up. All it cares is that you made a bet with an EV of +$X/wager with a std. dev. of $Y/wager. It doesn't care if that wager was made at faro or tiddle-e-winks.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you very much for your reply... this was the concept that confused me. i'm still not sure about it, but thank you none the less. independence is tricky in these situations. look at my post about gambling gus in the probability forum. i don't believe your sports betting analogy applies though, because the outcome chances are not fixed...

the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation. you'll generally need the trips. the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips (because even though rarer, you'll lose a lot more when you both flop trips)

in my mind, the DEFAULT play would be to fold unless you were sure that both of your raisers very likely don't have JJ, QQ, KK or AA, because if they do, it is -EV. the rarity and variance issues came up as i was trying to prove this. TT should not call there because it is GENERALLY not +EV even in these loose games. an early raise is still an early raise, and 2 early raises is screaming AA,KK,QQ,AKs.

anyways, i'm sure the postflop sections will give me a few new insights, and i look forward to the rest of the book.

until then, i want to remind you again that you were wrong on the explanation of why position has value... it is because you KNOW what they are doing ALWAYS. their guessing wrong does not imply profit ALWAYS, only most of the time. you should add a footnote in the second edition. something like "* unless they guess you will bet and they intend to raise in a situation where you are favored".

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]

the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation. you'll generally need the trips. the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips (because even though rarer, you'll lose a lot more when you both flop trips)

[/ QUOTE ]

You hit trips with TT a lot more often than 6%.

[jedi]

E-Drug Trader,

[ QUOTE ]
anyways, i'm sure the postflop sections will give me a few new insights, and i look forward to the rest of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to buy a new book, since you soiled pages 56-80 already.

[ QUOTE ]

until then, i want to remind you again that you were wrong on the explanation of why position has value... it is because you KNOW what they are doing ALWAYS. their guessing wrong does not imply profit ALWAYS, only most of the time. you should add a footnote in the second edition. something like "* unless they guess you will bet and they intend to raise in a situation where you are favored".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should have read pages 56-80. Somewhere along the line Ed acknowledges that you may get trapped occasionally, but the value you extract from people who are willing to pay you off more than makes up for it. And yes, it ALWAYS profitable. You're being results oriented here. If it's +EV, then it ALWAYS is profitable, even if you happen to lose the hand.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - math please, otherwise your entire argument is bullsh[/b]it

2 - there are preflop situations where you will win less than your "fair share", yet are hugely profitable when played correctly, so saying "you only win 6% of the time" isn't necessarily an argument for folding a hand.

[sabre170]

Doesn't the "thinness" of the edge depend on the range of hands you put your opponents' on?

For example, I hold KJo. If I put my opponent on exactly KT, I have a huge edge. If I put him on "anything but a pair higher than TT," I have a smaller edge. If I put him on "any two face cards that aren't a pair", I have a very thin or non-existent edge. And if I put him on a pair, JJ or higher, he dominates me.

Aren't the accuracy of my read and the ability to narrow the range of hands I consider possible to my opponent more important than the "edge" that I calculate?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Sabre170

[Freudian]

What did that have to do with what I wrote?

We have several players that are acknowledged as good players that tell us they have had downswings of 400-500BB.

This means that they either a) play at a lower limit that someone with less variance can play or b) have to move down in limits more often.

This affects earn rate.

And there are tonnes of small edges you can decide to push or not that will lead to quite a substantial increase in variance.

If the answer to this question is "well they play a tougher game so it doesn't matter but for everyone else it will work" it seems like quite the evasion.

[madmisha]

Ed-unrelated to this post, but your book has really helped my game, and I have been winning big pots I never would have been in before.

Thanks

[Ed Miller]

Ed-unrelated to this post, but your book has really helped my game, and I have been winning big pots I never would have been in before.

Thank you. I appreciate the positive feedback. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you have anything besides your 'hunch' to back up the validity of this statement?

Just because you think it will even it out doesn't mean it really will.


Additionally, hitting trips doesn't have to be the only way to win the hand. TT unimproved will actually take it occasionally too as difficult as they that may be to believe.

[sfer]

You're missing my point. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I claimed that poker is naturally variance rich and pushing a handful of small +EV situations isn't going to increase your variance noticably. Please show me how a handful of hands every thousand or so will make your variance measurably greater.

[Ed Miller]

You're missing my point. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I claimed that poker is naturally variance rich and pushing a handful of small +EV situations isn't going to increase your variance noticably.

This is essentially my claim as well. As long as you are playing a fundamentally tight game, adding proper aggression should pump up your variance only a "notch" or two. At the very least, it will improve your winrate at the same time, mitigating the effect the increased variance will have on your ability to run bad.

Now playing in aggressive GAMES will increase your variance a fair bit. Playing in these games also (depending on the quality of the aggressive players) can cut your winrate a bit, leading to the double cold streak whammy of increased std. dev. and lower winrate.

Playing shorthanded will also bump up your variance.

I guess my point is this. The style you play isn't the major determiner of the size of your swings. It's whether you choose to play in the Mirage $20-$40 (a "docile" game) or the Party $15-$30 that plays a bigger role.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point is this. The style you play isn't the major determiner of the size of your swings. It's whether you choose to play in the Mirage $20-$40 (a "docile" game) or the Party $15-$30 that plays a bigger role.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, in Diablo's case, Party 10/20 6-max.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - math please, otherwise your entire argument is bullsh[/b]it

[/ QUOTE ]
well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a huge winner at 10-20 games and below. I usually play 6-12 to 10-20 in B&M and 4 tables of 5-10 at once online. I've been playing over 5 years, and now it is my sole source of income. I wrote a bot that screen-scrapes hand history data from an online poker site, and recently my win rate in big bets per hand was the highest against any other player in a 250,000 hand sample at the limits i play. I'd like to think i am getting by far the best of it at all times.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, after all that, do you really not know how often a set is flopped, or do you think they only win about half the time?

[Ed Miller]

well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on.

I hope I didn't actually say that. What page is that on?

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on.

I hope I didn't actually say that. What page is that on?

[/ QUOTE ]
looking back, it wouldn't be in the book as you didn't actually talk about this scenario. i got the recommendation from your preflop charts. i don't have the book with me, so i can't check. discussions with other members of this forum likely led to the "flop or set or fold" justification of the play.

working out the math in the other thread, with a few assumptions on pot size if you win, "flop a set or fold" actually is a break even play to call in the situation (seat 5, 3 bet to you). Therefore assuming superior postflop play to your opponents, this is a +EV play.

My arguement is you are likely up against a bigger pocket pair. even in crazy loose games, unless you know the 2 players to be maniacs, even weak players know enough about position to not 3 bet early with a junk hand or ragged ace. If they have JJ, QQ, KK, or AA it will not be very easy to get them off of their hand. If we are assuming the game is loose enough to warrant 3 bets cold for 3-4 players, then we can also assume KK would call you down even if the ace hits.

With the likelyhood that we are up against a bigger pocket pair, the assumption of "flop a set (and win) or fold" is clouded by the chance that we may flop a set and be up against a bigger set. We also may hit a lowball flop, decide to play our overpair strong and lose to a bigger overpair for a few more bets.

Basically if "flop a set or fold" is break even assuming we win when we flop a set, then adding in the chance of flopping a set and losing or not flopping a set and likely being up against an overpair make this individual recommendation wrong in my eyes.

The arguement spiraled out of control where unrelated issues of rarity and variance came up... but in the end, i think this specific play should not be the "default" play for the situation. i think the default and ONLY play should be fold. the only way it isn't -EV is if player 3 and 4 don't have a bigger pocket pair, or around 2 more people don't call the 3 bets cold behind you (unlikely even in loose games).

If you disagree with this, and don't mind explaining this one specific play, I would love any insight i'm missing. Until then, TT goes in the muck!

funny side note, i actually had TT in seat 5 last night after the lengthy thread. sadly it was folded to me and i picked up the blinds with a raise.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
with a few assumptions on pot size if you win

[/ QUOTE ]


Just because you are assuming something doesn't make it so.

I believe you are greatly exaggerating the number of times that you will get beaten by set over set.

FWIW, I have already stated that there will actually be times that your TT takes it unimproved as hard as this may be to believe.

You had already stated that you had not read the post-flop section yet but you are already making assumptions that Ed has a fit-or-fold mentality regarding the TT. If you had read the post-flop section you would find that he most certainly would not recommend playing it this way.


I think you made assumptions about needing to flop a set or ditch it...I don't recall too many agreeing with you. although, I don't remember too many going out of their way to disagree with this either except yours truly....but I did admittedly skim through a lot of the posts in the previous thread so if you really did have a lot of supporters for the philosophy "Obviously you ditch it right away if you don't flop a set" then I wouldn't be too surprised (although I certainly wouldn't agree).

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you are assuming something doesn't make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]exactlly... i was implying the assumption was that the pot was on the LARGE side if you won. if we are playing fit or fold and flop the set and bet and pick up the pot right there, that is terrible! because on the long shot of winning a large pot we hit and got a smallish pot, so the results we based the call preflop on were wrong. "just because you assume something doesn't make it so" adds to my fold this situation preflop arguement.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you are greatly exaggerating the number of times that you will get beaten by set over set.

[/ QUOTE ]
i never said how often that would happen... i said that assuming it wouldn't happen was break even. then assuming it would happen 1 in 1,000,000 times pushes the bet to the negative side.

(SIDE NOTE: my 88 in the big blind got rocked by AA who open limped last night in front of a folding small blind. board was A82-6-J no straight or flush possible on the river as we capped it. it does happen)

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I have already stated that there will actually be times that your TT takes it unimproved as hard as this may be to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]if TT unimproved wins the pot, then JJ+ would win the pot and my arguement is that it is likely to be out there. if it is out there and TT would have taken the pot, you'll likely be putting bets in all the way to the river.

this is a break even at best high variance play... i don't like the call. i would fold every time.

IF you were going to call, you MUST raise.

that is why i find this play 100% wrong.

[MicroBob]

you should read the post-flop sections of SSH.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
you should read the post-flop sections of SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm almost done with the book...

can someone please just explain the call with TT in seat 5 when it is 3 bet to you?

it seems like such an obvious fold to me.

we can go back and forth on general poker theory all day, but this is a pretty cut and dried example... should you ever call here? should you ever cap here? if there is a 5 bet cap should you 4 bet?

i say fold every time, but i almost hope i'm wrong, and my game has a hole that someone could plug up as i could apply the ideas somewhere else.

[Richard Berg]

Cap if they're maniacs, call (to see whether anyone caps) if they're LAGs, fold if they're rocks. Why is this difficult?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - math please, otherwise your entire argument is bullsh[/b]it

[/ QUOTE ]
well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no math behind that statement.

[Ed Miller]

can someone please just explain the call with TT in seat 5 when it is 3 bet to you?

Read beginning the bottom of p.85. Maybe that will help answer your question?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
can someone please just explain the call with TT in seat 5 when it is 3 bet to you?

Read beginning the bottom of p.85. Maybe that will help answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, Ed. You missed the part of his post where E-drug trader used page 85 to wipe his ass after he "actually crapped himself."

Edit: My mistake. He only used pages 56-80 to wipe his ass.

[GuyOnTilt]

Cap if they're maniacs, call (to see whether anyone caps) if they're LAGs, fold if they're rocks. Why is this difficult?

The vast majority of opponents fall into none of these three categories.

GoT

[Hallett]

in the live 6-12 game I play in, it would be perfectly appropriate to call three bets with TT. Online is way different, and higher limits different as well. Your book was written for small stakes games, and from what I can tell, live ones at that. For that, I agree completely, but until they have a pokertracker version that works in a live game, I have no stats to back it up. In my game, people are three betting and capping with J-9 suited, because they are in already, and since it is going to get there anyway, they may as well do it themselves. I am completely serious.

[Saint_D]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not being nit-picky. If I put it in the book.. particularly if I backed it up with an example.. it's IMPORTANT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one want to say "Thank you." for taking the effort to make these important points online and in the books. Your books and posts have made playing winning poker a possibility for me.

Thank you.

-Saint_D

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
in the live 6-12 game I play in, it would be perfectly appropriate to call three bets with TT. Online is way different, and higher limits different as well. Your book was written for small stakes games, and from what I can tell, live ones at that. For that, I agree completely, but until they have a pokertracker version that works in a live game, I have no stats to back it up. In my game, people are three betting and capping with J-9 suited, because they are in already, and since it is going to get there anyway, they may as well do it themselves. I am completely serious.

[/ QUOTE ]
i agree with this 100%... however, i'm not talking about J9s that limped and got stuck for a raise and then put in then 3rd bet... i'm specifically talking about a 10 handed game where UTG raises and UTG+1 3 bets. i agree also that it may be "perfectly appropriate"... if "perfectly appropriate" means "not -EV". the EV of the play hasn't been proven to me however.

[Hallett]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in the live 6-12 game I play in, it would be perfectly appropriate to call three bets with TT. Online is way different, and higher limits different as well. Your book was written for small stakes games, and from what I can tell, live ones at that. For that, I agree completely, but until they have a pokertracker version that works in a live game, I have no stats to back it up. In my game, people are three betting and capping with J-9 suited, because they are in already, and since it is going to get there anyway, they may as well do it themselves. I am completely serious.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i agree with this 100%... however, i'm not talking about J9s that limped and got stuck for a raise and then put in then 3rd bet... i'm specifically talking about a 10 handed game where UTG raises and UTG+1 3 bets. i agree also that it may be "perfectly appropriate"... if "perfectly appropriate" means "not -EV". the EV of the play hasn't been proven to me however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Ed is saying if you are in EP1 (UTG+3) you should be cold calling with TT. I read this to mean if you are there are a a numer of people in the hand, and those people have weak raising (and calling) standards, there will be a lot of these guys going to far after the flop. If this is so, a hand like TT is reasonable.

eg.
UTG raises, UTG+2 calls,
EP1 two bets, EP2 calls,
folded to C/o who three bets, you are on the button...CALL.

I don't think Ed is betting his reputation on the idea of always calling three bets cold with TT. I interpret it to mean that at times it is OK, and you have to think a bit. If the raisers are loose, it might be OK. I think what it says in the book is reasonable for the games I play in.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Ed is saying if you are in EP1 (UTG+3) you should be cold calling with TT.

[/ QUOTE ]
that is exact what the chart says should be the "default" play.

i agree with all but a few of these default plays... one of them being the Ax and Kx suited hands early position when you expect the pot to be large, the other is this TT play.

i just argued it shouldn't be the default play... if anything fold should be default and call/raise should be the 5% play if other certain parameters are met, such as tendancy for people behind you to also call the 3 bets cold, or tendancy for the UTG and UTG+1 to raise and re-raise with hands worse than TT.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

Phew. At first glance I thought you were going to call me a liar.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

And then challenge you to a heads up match for $10k /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I agree with El Diablo. I am a 3BB/100 winner and have had a 300 BB downswing, but if I was really playing my A game through that stretch, it probably would have only been 230-250.

[Boopotts]

So, what was the over-under on the amount of time it would take after the release of the book before people started nit-picking the pre-flop section? Anyone?

You have pocket T's, and it's three bet to you. Who cares what you do? Ed says call, I'd probably fold, la di dadda dadda.

BTW, my sister bought the book and I've been looking it over. On the balance, I'm really impressed with it. There are some things I would change, but a few of the concepts presented therein were really well presented. The other nice thing about the book-- less than 5% of its readers will have either the natural intelligence or the poker acumen to properly apply the advice, which means the games should get even better. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Can't wait till people start tossing isolation raises at me on the flop with middle pair and a back door flush draw...

[Emperor]

Everyone must be as lazy as me! Proving Ed wrong is cake.

Here is the Algorithm.

Take your Risk of Ruin equation and plug in your unacceptable loss. 500BB?

Plug in confidence level 95% (3 Simgmas or whatever)

Solve for Standard Deviation.

Square it.

Wa La!

If you are playing a game where your variance is higher than this number then you are at risk of losing your bankroll.

Sklansky/Mason?? in some OLD articles talks about optimum SD for LIMIT poker.

Jim Brier (Middle Limit Hold'em) coached a PRO B&M player who Jim says was playing winning poker who not only lost +300BB but was DOWN over a 1yr period!

We all know there are plenty of marginal plays that can be based on math or reads or how many tamales you ate. Whether or not your BR can handle them is easy to calculate. (I'm too lazy for easy)

These questions also are a LOT more relevant in No Limit games, Omaha, Casino whoring, etc... I know that we aren't talking about those, but its the same math.

Get a calulator.

See you at the tables!