Interesting...

[sthief09]

I have hw to do, so I was looking at Barry Greenstein's website (barrygreenstein.com). he has one section for stuff that was cut out of his book. most of it is computer programs he made to calculate stuff (www.barrygreenstein.com/extra.htm). one of his calculations is that the odds of getting dealt AA in the BB after everyone folded is 132-1 (I don't remember the exact number), as opposed to the normal 220-1. that's a huge difference (65%). for those of you who aren't getting it, it's because people are more apt to play aces, and a bunch of folds indicates weak cards. I'm sure getting a pair of deuces would be far worse than 220-1.

this is something that's not often written about (I think it's called bunching--is that right?). apparently, in certain situations (I assume that having AA after 9 folds is among the most pronounced), this is pretty significant.

I wonder how much of a difference it makes with blind steals. it's probably somewhat more likely for someone to have a decent hand, or one containing an A or 2 decent cards.

comments? I feel like this was in one of the Poker Essays books but I don't remember which

[Nate tha' Great]

So you get AA 0.75% of the time instead of 0.45% of the time? That's a whole 0.3%!!!!!

[sthief09]

well, I'm curious if it has any implications in other parts of the game. obviously, getting it folded to you and having AA won't improve anyone's game, but does it matter when you're say, on the button after 6 folds, looking at 98o, where, against a normal distribution of hands, they might fold enough, but against a deck short on deuces and treys, they won't?

[Caruso329]

This makes no sense. For example what if the other players had 99, TT, TT, JJ, JJ, QQ, QQ, KK, KK? Without this being known I'm sure the likelihood (which is all that Greenstein is calculating) that you are dealt Aces is much lower because it is capped before it even gets to you. Therefore one of them must have an ace, and therefore your odds of getting dealt AA go down. We all know that this is not true.

Also what if 4 players in have A2o, A2o, A2o, and A2o? If all are sound players and fold then does this increase the odds that you will have AA? Of course not.

Greenstein is only calculating the likelihood that you have an ace is greater because most weak players will play them.

[sthief09]

no, not really. his book is for 400/800 games, so I doubt he's assuming that there are a lot of weak players. he shows his table of playable and not playable from each position, and I guess does some binary crap, like A or not A, then calculates the weighted number of each card left in the deck. clearly, if there are 9 limps, there will often be less A's than if there are 9 folds.

and if it comes to you capped, it's more likely that there are more deuces in the deck and less A's, because you have information on 3 hands, the raiser, 3-bettor, and capper. none of them have deuces. that's 6 cards and no deuces. if it's folded to you, you don't have such information

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
one of his calculations is that the odds of getting dealt AA in the BB after everyone folded

[/ QUOTE ]

He used "When getting a walk in the big blind"? This is when no one raises right?

[sthief09]

that's what I'm assuming

[slickpoppa]

Where is clean URL please when you need him

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is clean URL please when you need him

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any long links in this thread.

Why would you need him?

*EDIT*
Alright, I see a couple of links, but they aren't bad.

[slickpoppa]

the problem is not that they are long, but that they are not clickable

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is not that they are long, but that they are not clickable

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right.
Good point!


Courtesy of Clean URL Please:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v247/razor27/InstantURLCode.jpg

[Richie Rich]

Did you just figure this out? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MicroBob]

Haven't read the link yet...but this is an issue I find very interesting.
In fact, it was the topic of my very first post on these forums (back before I knew what UTG or CO meant).


I don't know how relevant it is in ring-games...but the fact that Barry sees that there is something there is very interesting.


I think it might be a little more relevant to NL ring and tourney games.

If it's 4-handed, and the first two players have folded...and the blinds race with 77 vs. AK I suspect that it's closer to 50-50 than it is 54-46 (or whatever the hell it is) because the 2 hands that folded are more likely to have not contained an ace....and are more likely to have contained a 7.


For the 77:
I would speculate that the information you got from the other 2 hands that folded means you have more like 1.9 cards in the deck to hit your set.

for the AK:
I would speculate that your 6 chances to hit an A or K are now out of 47.5 cards instead of 48 cards.


I don't know exactly how much that changes the percentages in the race (and we're going on estimates anyway)...but I do believe there are many situations where the 77 is not the slight favorite that conventional wisdom says it is.

I don't think 54/46 as opposed to 50/50 really changes things that much...but I would be interested to see a study that shows whether AK perhaps does a little better than expected vs. 77 in race situations....particularly on short-handed tables after the other 1 or 2 other players have folded (thus indicating a greater likelihood of A's remaining in the pack).

[axioma]

this has been discussed a fair bit in the past with the general consensus being that it is of little paractical use.

it looks good on paper but its effect is of such small significance that using it to alter your play, in the vast majority of cases, would be incorrect.