Ed Miller's response to Jim Brier

[SlantNGo]

Compliments on a very well-written article. I have struggled with the calling down issue, and the entire section, including the EV calculations were very informative. Also, the "information to # of words" ratio in this article is through the roof! Can we look forward to more great articles from you Ed?

[Jman28]

Great articles Ed and Jim. I really look foreward to any further discussion between the two of you and anyone else who chimes in.

[1800GAMBLER]

I enjoyed it too and am looking forward to more.

[knifeandfork]

um ok chase a back door flush with two overs and a gut shot ok, heck im almost a favorite i can do that:) now this silliness about 5 outs what is this?

[MicroBob]

I've read Ed's book and some of his previous posts so I had high expectations for his January 2+2-mag article.
Somehow he actually exceeded my expectations with this effort.

Terrific article.


There is one other issue that I'm interested in....perhaps it could be material for a future article:

In the discussions on the various forums on jim's article (which first appeared in cardplayer for those who didn't know), as well as on some other discussions of smaller-suited hands, there is further excuse-making.

Basically, there are many who will argue that a smaller flush is not worth pushing because of the "significant" chance that your flush will be up against a higher flush.
I have also seen this argument with regards to baby-pairs in a multi-way raised-pot. That even if you make your set you're probably screwed because the chances of someone else having a higher set is significant enough that you will get killed with your small set in the long-run.

Comments from Ed on this kind of defeatest "even if I make my hand I'm significantly likely NOT to win the pot" type of mentality would be welcome....but again, perhaps this topic would be best saved for the future.
the only reason I bring it up is because it appeared in some of the threads discussing Jim's article when it first appeared in cardplayer.

[AdamL]

I'd still really like to hear Ed respond directly to the one where you have 92s. The idea of "rarely" vs "never" would seem to support Jim's analysis more than Ed's in that hand, since sometimes you'll have the best hand.

[AdamL]

Is there any chance of getting a response?

[Toonces]

Ed Miller takes the possibility into account on the 92s hand that you have the best hand. His basic argument is that when you have the best hand, you will usually win a small pot, but when you don't have the best hand, you will have a hard time getting away from it, since there are so many different ways that cards can help your opponents that you won't know is any particular card put you behind.

[Ed Miller]

The idea of "rarely" vs "never" would seem to support Jim's analysis more than Ed's in that hand, since sometimes you'll have the best hand.

Yes, sometimes you do have the best hand. But when the pot is that small, you need to be ahead more often than "rarely." The size of the bets you will make getting to the river is more than what's in the pot. That means you need to be ahead something like 50% or more (due to the possibility of getting drawn out on), not 5%, to make raising correct.

As with many of these problems, the answer changes as you make different assumptions about what the bettor might have. In this 92s hand, if the bettor will bet literally any hand, then raising becomes the obvious play. As you winnow down the number of hands he might bet, you lose equity, and eventually the decision switches to a fold.

I believe that a "typical" player will bet a range of hands in that spot small enough that folding is best.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that a "typical" player will bet a range of hands in that spot small enough that folding is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply have to say something about this Spot. Spot? Which spot Ed? The spot on the wall, the spot on Spot the Dog, the spot on your shirt, that you never change, and where you slobbered a blob of lasagna last week?

Damn Sklansky and Malmuth. They are the prime instigators of this spot menace. It needs to be rubbed out(*). Do you see why?

-Zeno

* I will now have submit two articles to Mason. You are in a spot now Mr. Ed. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[AdamL]

Thanks Toonces and Ed for explaining that for me.