frankg
02-15-2005, 12:35 AM
In Sklansky's TOP, chapter 24, section "Analyzing the cost of a mistake", he brings up a situation in no-limit hold-em that had me thinking. He gives an example in which you should not necessarily choose a play that is favored to be correct over 50% of the time if the cost of making a mistake is too great.
You are dealt QQ in early position and open the betting with a standard raise. Everyone folds except one player, who makes a huge reraise. You have a pretty good read on the player and know that he would only make a move like that with AA, KK, or AK. The odds work out that it's a 4-to-3 favorite your opponent has AK instead of AA or KK, so 4/7 of the time your QQ is the favorite, and 3/7 of the time it is the underdog. So, naturally, most people would at least call the re-raise (or go all-in). However, if your opponent DOES have AK, your QQ is only a 13-10 favorite pre-flop. So you will average winning 13 times, but the other 10 out of 23 times you will lose against AK. Furthermore, those 3 times out of 7 that your opponent has AA or KK you are a big 4.5-to-1 underdog.
Hence you cannot say "My queens are 4-to-3 favorites to be the best hand, so I must call". The math dictates that the times your opponent has AA or KK you hurt yourself so much that you don't gain enough of it back when he has AK, thus making it a -EV play.
The above is almost exactly the way Sklansky words this problem. I had to read it a few times to fully grasp this concept. It was very eye opening for me because I think in most cases I would either call or reraise with queens, even if i thought my opponent had AK. I realize that this is all a moot point if you don't have an accurate read on your opponent. This problem wouldn't apply to looser opponents also. But let me ask the experienced players here: would you fold your queens if you knew your opponent probably had AK? In a no-limit cash game? In a no-limit tournament? Short stacked?
You are dealt QQ in early position and open the betting with a standard raise. Everyone folds except one player, who makes a huge reraise. You have a pretty good read on the player and know that he would only make a move like that with AA, KK, or AK. The odds work out that it's a 4-to-3 favorite your opponent has AK instead of AA or KK, so 4/7 of the time your QQ is the favorite, and 3/7 of the time it is the underdog. So, naturally, most people would at least call the re-raise (or go all-in). However, if your opponent DOES have AK, your QQ is only a 13-10 favorite pre-flop. So you will average winning 13 times, but the other 10 out of 23 times you will lose against AK. Furthermore, those 3 times out of 7 that your opponent has AA or KK you are a big 4.5-to-1 underdog.
Hence you cannot say "My queens are 4-to-3 favorites to be the best hand, so I must call". The math dictates that the times your opponent has AA or KK you hurt yourself so much that you don't gain enough of it back when he has AK, thus making it a -EV play.
The above is almost exactly the way Sklansky words this problem. I had to read it a few times to fully grasp this concept. It was very eye opening for me because I think in most cases I would either call or reraise with queens, even if i thought my opponent had AK. I realize that this is all a moot point if you don't have an accurate read on your opponent. This problem wouldn't apply to looser opponents also. But let me ask the experienced players here: would you fold your queens if you knew your opponent probably had AK? In a no-limit cash game? In a no-limit tournament? Short stacked?