aflaba
07-04-2005, 07:23 PM
My question concerns an old hand (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=791991&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&vc=1) played by Clarkmeister. The hand was low-limit, but his play was clearly "high-limit".
The part that my quetion concerns and where I disagree with Clarkmeister is the flop. In this post (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=793896&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) Clarkmeister says he wouldn't fold his AK even for 2 bets cold.
I don't see how that can be correct.
-----My analysis
Let's say he calls 2 bets cold on the flop with one other player (3 players in the pot). That would make 10 + 4 = 14 SB in the pot. And another 2 from Clarkmeiseter. Clarkmesiter would be getting 2:14 = 1:7 on his call. The same odds as those of his hand improving. (Add to that some implied odds when HHgetsG)
Now, that would be OK if Clarmeister's hand hand would always improve to become the best hand. But frequently his hand will be reverse dominated. And occasionally he will be up against two pair or a set leaving him with no outs. This "danger" is well described by Jason Pohl here (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/jason-pohl16.htm) and here (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/jason-pohl17.htm).
Taking that in mind, what would have been a small EV+ call if he knew all his outs were good 100% of the time is in reality a EV- call since that is not the case.
-----
What do you think?
EDIT: Of course I bow to Clarkmeister. No disrespect intended.
The part that my quetion concerns and where I disagree with Clarkmeister is the flop. In this post (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=793896&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) Clarkmeister says he wouldn't fold his AK even for 2 bets cold.
I don't see how that can be correct.
-----My analysis
Let's say he calls 2 bets cold on the flop with one other player (3 players in the pot). That would make 10 + 4 = 14 SB in the pot. And another 2 from Clarkmeiseter. Clarkmesiter would be getting 2:14 = 1:7 on his call. The same odds as those of his hand improving. (Add to that some implied odds when HHgetsG)
Now, that would be OK if Clarmeister's hand hand would always improve to become the best hand. But frequently his hand will be reverse dominated. And occasionally he will be up against two pair or a set leaving him with no outs. This "danger" is well described by Jason Pohl here (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/jason-pohl16.htm) and here (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/jason-pohl17.htm).
Taking that in mind, what would have been a small EV+ call if he knew all his outs were good 100% of the time is in reality a EV- call since that is not the case.
-----
What do you think?
EDIT: Of course I bow to Clarkmeister. No disrespect intended.