mdlm
12-10-2002, 05:38 PM
I have come to the tentative conclusion that determining whether I am ahead at the flop is the single most important flop decision. It is far more important than other issues which get much more play on 2+2, such as figuring out when to slow play or whether to bet or check-raise.
I believe that this is the most important decision because small errors in estimating the probability that I am ahead lead to huge errors in estimating the number of outs I have.
An example will serve to illustrate this point. Let’s say that I have an overcard and I think that pairing this overcard is my only way to win. In this case, I have at most three outs. What do I have to worry about? My primary concern is whether or not someone else holds one of my outs. If someone does, then I only have 2 outs. Let’s say that I think there is a 50% chance that someone else has one of my outs. In this case I should play as if I have 2.5 outs (0.5*3 + 0.5*2 = 2.5).
Now imagine that I am way off and in fact there is a 90% chance that someone else has one of my outs. In this case I only have 2.1 outs (0.1*3 + 0.9*2) so I have made an error of only 0.4 outs despite the fact that my estimate was way off (50% vs. 90%). This small error is unlikely to change my play.
Now let’s consider the question of whether or not I am ahead. If I am ahead then the vast majority of the cards in the deck are effectively outs. Let’s say that I think there is a 50% chance that I am ahead and a 50% chance that I need to improve. Furthermore, let’s say that if I am ahead I effectively have 30 outs and if I need to improve I have 3 outs. In this case I have 16.5 outs (0.5*30 + 0.5*3).
Again let’s imagine that I am way off and I actually have a 10% chance of being ahead and a 90% chance of being behind. In this case I have 5.7 outs (0.1*30 + 0.9*3). There is a difference of 10.8 outs (16.5 – 5.7) between this case and the previous case.
Clearly, a difference of 10.8 outs will often be enough to change how I play the hand. Note that even minor errors in estimating the probability of being ahead will lead to large errors in estimating the number of outs.
This is why I believe that estimating the probability of being ahead is by far the most important flop decision. I am amazed that entire books aren’t devoted to analyzing this question.
Here is an example from a recent hand I played:
I see the flop of Ts9h3s along with two other limpers and the BB. I have Kd9d and fold to a bet. The pot is won by a limper with Ad3d. The other limper has KsQc and the BB has 3h7h.
Note that even though I am dominated by KsQc (and hence a K is not an out) and another player has an overcard I still have the best chance to win the hand. Assuming that this is representative of how my opponents play, folding here was a major error caused by my inability to estimate the probability that I am ahead at the flop.
==>
Comments on Comments
Easy E pointed out that I may have been fooled by the Angelina post. That is quite possible. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Nevertheless, the key point is that there is someone who has presented an alternative view of how to play poker and someone who follows this theory seems to be able to beat PP 20/40 with this theory.
Bernie says that the game is not black and white. If all of the information about a game is known, it is definitely black and white (with the exception of the rare cases when two actions have exactly the same EV). Bernie goes on to say that there are many ways to win at hold ‘em. That is certainly true, but I doubt that there are many ways to extract the maximum EV.
Homer Simpson is correct in saying that I am trying to find a way to determine whether a particular play is the best or not. At its most microscopic level, poker is a series of check/fold/bet/raise decisions. If player A says that a bet is the best and player B says that a raise is the best I am interested in finding out how to go about determining who is correct. I understand that the answer will be different in different situations (loose vs. tight, high limit vs. low limit, etc.), but for any particular situation there is a correct answer (again, excluding the rare cases when two decisions have the same EV).
KurnsonofMogh points out that understanding why a play is correct is more important than understanding what the correct play is because understanding the play gives you the power to adapt to different playing conditions. I agree.
Angelo Alba suggests that I study Jones and play low limit games instead of playing funny money no limit tournaments. This is what I will be doing when and if I accomplish my current goals.
==>
Goal Update
This past week, I spent approximately 18.5 hours on poker: 13 hours playing PokerPages tournaments, 5 hours on 2+2, and 0.5 hours reading Jones.
I spent $28.99 on Ciaffone’s Pot Limit book this past week to help me with the PokerPages tournaments. I have spent a total of $438.46 out of my $1000 budget.
An update on each of the four goals (which are to be accomplished by 3/30/03):
1. Read and study Jones’ “Winning Low Limit Hold ’Em”
I put in a little bit of time reading Jones and found my first error. On page 45 of the book Jones discusses MP preflop play with “three or fewer callers in front” and says that you should call with KJ, QJ, and JT. On page 47 Jones discusses LP preflop play with “four or fewer callers in front” and says that KJ, QJ, and JT should be folded. Clearly, if KJ, QJ, and JT are playable in MP with only limpers in front, they are playable in LP with limpers in front. Finding this error is worth one point so I have two more points to go.
2. Beat Acespade
Goal Completed on 11/5/02.
Over a period of 100 hours (3600 hands) I beat Acespade’s best lineup at the rate of over 4 BB/hr.
3. Beat Masque World Series of Poker
Goal Completed on 11/17/02
After playing Masque WSOP dozens of time I finally became the Masque WSOP Champion.
4. PokerPages 85% rating in one calendar month playing 20 tournaments
After starting off this month by finishing second to last in a PokerPages tournament, I put together a string of 6 strong tournaments this past week and my rating is currently 86.51%. I finished #19 out of 109, #5 out of 87, #8 out of 101, #26 out of 126, #20 out of 134, and #3 out of 80.
I believe that this is the most important decision because small errors in estimating the probability that I am ahead lead to huge errors in estimating the number of outs I have.
An example will serve to illustrate this point. Let’s say that I have an overcard and I think that pairing this overcard is my only way to win. In this case, I have at most three outs. What do I have to worry about? My primary concern is whether or not someone else holds one of my outs. If someone does, then I only have 2 outs. Let’s say that I think there is a 50% chance that someone else has one of my outs. In this case I should play as if I have 2.5 outs (0.5*3 + 0.5*2 = 2.5).
Now imagine that I am way off and in fact there is a 90% chance that someone else has one of my outs. In this case I only have 2.1 outs (0.1*3 + 0.9*2) so I have made an error of only 0.4 outs despite the fact that my estimate was way off (50% vs. 90%). This small error is unlikely to change my play.
Now let’s consider the question of whether or not I am ahead. If I am ahead then the vast majority of the cards in the deck are effectively outs. Let’s say that I think there is a 50% chance that I am ahead and a 50% chance that I need to improve. Furthermore, let’s say that if I am ahead I effectively have 30 outs and if I need to improve I have 3 outs. In this case I have 16.5 outs (0.5*30 + 0.5*3).
Again let’s imagine that I am way off and I actually have a 10% chance of being ahead and a 90% chance of being behind. In this case I have 5.7 outs (0.1*30 + 0.9*3). There is a difference of 10.8 outs (16.5 – 5.7) between this case and the previous case.
Clearly, a difference of 10.8 outs will often be enough to change how I play the hand. Note that even minor errors in estimating the probability of being ahead will lead to large errors in estimating the number of outs.
This is why I believe that estimating the probability of being ahead is by far the most important flop decision. I am amazed that entire books aren’t devoted to analyzing this question.
Here is an example from a recent hand I played:
I see the flop of Ts9h3s along with two other limpers and the BB. I have Kd9d and fold to a bet. The pot is won by a limper with Ad3d. The other limper has KsQc and the BB has 3h7h.
Note that even though I am dominated by KsQc (and hence a K is not an out) and another player has an overcard I still have the best chance to win the hand. Assuming that this is representative of how my opponents play, folding here was a major error caused by my inability to estimate the probability that I am ahead at the flop.
==>
Comments on Comments
Easy E pointed out that I may have been fooled by the Angelina post. That is quite possible. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Nevertheless, the key point is that there is someone who has presented an alternative view of how to play poker and someone who follows this theory seems to be able to beat PP 20/40 with this theory.
Bernie says that the game is not black and white. If all of the information about a game is known, it is definitely black and white (with the exception of the rare cases when two actions have exactly the same EV). Bernie goes on to say that there are many ways to win at hold ‘em. That is certainly true, but I doubt that there are many ways to extract the maximum EV.
Homer Simpson is correct in saying that I am trying to find a way to determine whether a particular play is the best or not. At its most microscopic level, poker is a series of check/fold/bet/raise decisions. If player A says that a bet is the best and player B says that a raise is the best I am interested in finding out how to go about determining who is correct. I understand that the answer will be different in different situations (loose vs. tight, high limit vs. low limit, etc.), but for any particular situation there is a correct answer (again, excluding the rare cases when two decisions have the same EV).
KurnsonofMogh points out that understanding why a play is correct is more important than understanding what the correct play is because understanding the play gives you the power to adapt to different playing conditions. I agree.
Angelo Alba suggests that I study Jones and play low limit games instead of playing funny money no limit tournaments. This is what I will be doing when and if I accomplish my current goals.
==>
Goal Update
This past week, I spent approximately 18.5 hours on poker: 13 hours playing PokerPages tournaments, 5 hours on 2+2, and 0.5 hours reading Jones.
I spent $28.99 on Ciaffone’s Pot Limit book this past week to help me with the PokerPages tournaments. I have spent a total of $438.46 out of my $1000 budget.
An update on each of the four goals (which are to be accomplished by 3/30/03):
1. Read and study Jones’ “Winning Low Limit Hold ’Em”
I put in a little bit of time reading Jones and found my first error. On page 45 of the book Jones discusses MP preflop play with “three or fewer callers in front” and says that you should call with KJ, QJ, and JT. On page 47 Jones discusses LP preflop play with “four or fewer callers in front” and says that KJ, QJ, and JT should be folded. Clearly, if KJ, QJ, and JT are playable in MP with only limpers in front, they are playable in LP with limpers in front. Finding this error is worth one point so I have two more points to go.
2. Beat Acespade
Goal Completed on 11/5/02.
Over a period of 100 hours (3600 hands) I beat Acespade’s best lineup at the rate of over 4 BB/hr.
3. Beat Masque World Series of Poker
Goal Completed on 11/17/02
After playing Masque WSOP dozens of time I finally became the Masque WSOP Champion.
4. PokerPages 85% rating in one calendar month playing 20 tournaments
After starting off this month by finishing second to last in a PokerPages tournament, I put together a string of 6 strong tournaments this past week and my rating is currently 86.51%. I finished #19 out of 109, #5 out of 87, #8 out of 101, #26 out of 126, #20 out of 134, and #3 out of 80.