gergery
05-27-2005, 02:50 PM
So I just received my Bill Boston “Play to win with the Odds book”. I had a couple questions for y’all.
1. Some of you had posted before (Buzz at least), that there were some flaws or methodological things they didn’t agree with – what are those exactly?
2. Looking at the high hands, they are almost universally unprofitable. Within the universe of “4 cards ten or higher”, a rough glance seems like ~10-20% of them are profitable. This is a much smaller percentage than I would have expected. Thoughts?
3. Some of his profitable non-ace hands are things like 3455ds or KK24ds, stuff that I would consider marginal or worse. Thoughts?
A couple other takeaways (none of which are too surprising):
1. AA with low card constitutes something like 80% of the 100 top most profitable hands. If it doesn’t have AA2 or AA3, then the remaining hands are AA4/5 or A23. A2xx hands were slightly less strong as I’d have anticipated, tho obviously they are good hands.
2. His table on the worse hands was composed entirely of quads and trips hands. Pretty useless table.
3. His comments on the bandit cards (7,8,9) was interesting. It helped me see a bit more about why those cards are bad.
4. Being suited, and then double suited makes a huge difference.
5. His comparison of A2TJ vs. A2TK and why TJ is the better hand was interesting and helpful
6. His noting that the number of possible 5 card hands on the turn and river and how the # increases dramatically was interesting.
--Greg
1. Some of you had posted before (Buzz at least), that there were some flaws or methodological things they didn’t agree with – what are those exactly?
2. Looking at the high hands, they are almost universally unprofitable. Within the universe of “4 cards ten or higher”, a rough glance seems like ~10-20% of them are profitable. This is a much smaller percentage than I would have expected. Thoughts?
3. Some of his profitable non-ace hands are things like 3455ds or KK24ds, stuff that I would consider marginal or worse. Thoughts?
A couple other takeaways (none of which are too surprising):
1. AA with low card constitutes something like 80% of the 100 top most profitable hands. If it doesn’t have AA2 or AA3, then the remaining hands are AA4/5 or A23. A2xx hands were slightly less strong as I’d have anticipated, tho obviously they are good hands.
2. His table on the worse hands was composed entirely of quads and trips hands. Pretty useless table.
3. His comments on the bandit cards (7,8,9) was interesting. It helped me see a bit more about why those cards are bad.
4. Being suited, and then double suited makes a huge difference.
5. His comparison of A2TJ vs. A2TK and why TJ is the better hand was interesting and helpful
6. His noting that the number of possible 5 card hands on the turn and river and how the # increases dramatically was interesting.
--Greg