welcome to the rock.

[tiltaholic]

</sean connery>

ok new people i don't recoginze -- splain this to me:

So you are playing your normal game on however many table(s) you play. Maybe you're also surfing 2+2 or having hot IM cybersex at the same time.

You look at your cards and see jizzles (JJ) on the button. You are just about to click RAISE (i hope), but then you notice that 2 seats to your right is a rock who has already raised preflop after one limper. You happen to use a HUD and see that after 150ish hands he has a vpip of 9 and a pfr of 1.

What do you do and why?

[adsman]

Jizzles?

[Koss]

I wish I had more hands, but you can't argue with what you've seen so far. Fold. He's probably one of those AA-QQ/AK type raisers. JJ is way too far behind that range to call. Witha couple other limpers it may be ok to play it for set value, but not here.

[MrWookie47]

YSSC folding.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
Jizzles?

[/ QUOTE ]

they're almost as good as quizzles.

Thought this hand was called happy larrys...

I would still raise, but I wouldn't be too happy about it. Calling is no good and I'm not folding. It's also possible that the rock got tired of folding or that he has been cold-decked for a long time. Position is a nice thing aswell against a passive player.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
Jizzles?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's still thinking about the AIM cybersex.

If the read was over 75 hands, I CC all the time and pray for a JJA flop. Him having pfred 1 time in 150 makes me want to fold it.

I'd 3-bet. JJ is a premium hand. Raise for value.
Also if a Rock, as oppossed to a TAG, there is a possibility of pushing him off his hand with aggression post flop.

Will this get me recognized in future?

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jizzles?

[/ QUOTE ]

they're almost as good as quizzles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can never keep up with the new terminology. By the way, the rock, is he any good postflop?

ok im a newbie so...

a PFR percentage of 1% corresponds to AA (0,5%) and KK (0,5%)...feels like a clear fold

If the PFR percentage of the rock was slightly higher lets say 3 % (=AA-QQ +AK) my action would probably have been different. getting between 2:1 and 3:1 pending on BB and limpers' action I would call

The case for not rasing is that it would probably drive out the BB and limper, resulting in 2:1 odds (neglecting the risk of a re-raise). Against a Rock with AA-QQ+AK you are a 2:1 underdog. Being slighlty passive i would just call...

L

[TripleH68]

Been in this exact situation before.
Long reads of virtually never raising preflop are solid.
It sure helps if there are some limpers tagging along.

I do not have an answer, only to say that I have played to showdown in these situations and the outcome is in the red...so excellent question my friend.

[POKhER]

Call or fold.. Decisions decisions.
We could hit a set and PWN HIS ASS...

Hmm, It depends how bad i need to go toilet.

Ok, I Calllllll because position rules... and implied might be quite sexy if we hit a set yoo... (Whats his AF please?)

and im 17VPIP and folding JJ when im already bored would sucki.. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

P.s. I dont 3bet, Because this mofo's tight! Its a fold or call.

[68Mustang]

[ QUOTE ]
Thought this hand was called happy larrys...



[/ QUOTE ]

explain that name please?

pfr of 1 out of 150 hands is 1.5. So this could be 1 or 2 hands. We expect AA-QQ to come about 1.35% of the time, so this is a strong case for folding pre-flop. Since there is already one limper, this would give is about 2:1 to make the call and if we expect the loose blinds to come in, we're looking at 4:1, so we could treat this as a set-maker and fold if the rock gives any substantial action on the flop.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
(Whats his AF please?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless. He's got a VPIP of 9 over 150 hands. What's a 13-hand AF going to tell you, especially given that he probably hasn't shown down ANY of those?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thought this hand was called happy larrys...



[/ QUOTE ]

explain that name please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read this tread (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=540586&page=0&fpart=1&vc =1)

[SlantNGo]

If I can expect a 5- or 6-way pot, I CC. Otherwise I chuck it. No point 3-betting when I'm dominated by a good portion of his range and only a 55% favorite against the rest.

[KingOtter]

I think this is a fold. I wouldn't want to, but I should. I've folded premium hands to rock raises before, grudgingly, and been very happy I did it.

KO

[Aaron W.]

If you think he is capable of raising AK, then I would at least coldcall, if not raise. I don't think I would fold this hand.

1) You're barely below 50-50 to have the best hand against him (AK = 16, AA/KK/QQ = 18). If you don't think he's raising QQ, then you're a little above 50-50. Either way, you're making money off the donk in the middle by playing this hand (because I doubt he's folding preflop).
2) You have position on Rocky and there is a very small range of hands which you expect him to have. This means that you have the playing advantage and make fewer postflop errors.
3) Coldcalling might be better than 3-betting if you think the blinds are very likely to come along. They will help pad the pot when you are against a bigger pair. They will also help give you more action if you flop a set.
4) The advantage to 3-betting (besides getting more money in the pot) is to drive out the other players who might hold overcards to your pair. In this case, you are already getting out if any ace or king falls, which really leaves one mystery overcard (Q) where you're not quite sure what to do. This means that you don't really care so as much about driving out the overcards because most of the time it won't affect your decision.
5) If you 3-bet and Rocky caps, you can allow yourself to lean more towards believing he doesn't have AK.

So weighing it all together, I would lean a little bit closer to cold-calling if I think Rocky is... rockier. If he might be a little less so, then I wouldn't mind 3-betting him.

[xLukex]

I would cold call.

If I had this read over much more than 150 hands, yes, I would fold. But you get AA or KK on average once in 220 hands. He could just be running really cold. And idiots like this like to limp aces anyways.

5-600 hands, I fold. 150 hands, I call.

[Redd]

But this guy's numbers suggest that he doesn't raise AK here; even if we assume a decent deviation of like 3% true pfr AKs basically isn't in his hand range. Plus these super-tp types are usually more inclined to raise with big pairs than big overs regardless of if they're in the top x% of hands.

[Reqtech]

Muzzizzle yo carzizzles.

Against a rocky rock McRockerson, you'd be playing this hand for set value. You're looking at best 4 opponents, though it's more likely 3 since there's a good chance that SB folds.
And what if one of the blinds are LAGGROS? They could raise it up. But if that's the case, you shouldn't be at that table (rock to right and lags to left SUCKS)

I was quite sure I had "noticed" a class of rock that never raises the big pairs but, instead, seems to like to raise the odd medium pair (thinking maybe he's walking the "wild side" and bluffing out a TAG or two). But... upon checking my PT stats by setting the V$IP player filter to less than 15% and the PFR filter to less than 2% a different picture emerges where the overwhelming hands that such players raise with is AA, KK, and QQ. There was the one time that a rockie did raise with 88 and there was and occasional AKs and AQs but AA, KK seem to be the main choice for these types. So I guess I would have to (now) say that folding is the correct play.

Does anyone see anything different in PT??

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
But this guy's numbers suggest that he doesn't raise AK here; even if we assume a decent deviation of like 3% true pfr AKs basically isn't in his hand range. Plus these super-tp types are usually more inclined to raise with big pairs than big overs regardless of if they're in the top x% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

1% PFR is about 13.25 hands (1326 total starting hands). There are 6 pocket aces and 6 6 pocket kings. That makes up most of the 1%. If you give the HUD a 3% error, he could be raising as many as about 53 hands, and you'll have a tough time reaching that number without including AK. In fact, you'll have a tough time getting up to 2% (given that you have JJ) without getting some AK hands thrown in.

[RatFink]

I've had 150 hand sesssions where I was running at 9% and trust me if I ever got even an AJo/88+/KQ I'd be raising the damn thing.

1% PFR is small, but 150 hands isn't a true picture of anyones soul.

[Marquis]

So you have 150 hands on this guy. I'll assume he's raised twice, which would put his pfr at 1.33%. That could mean he raises AA, KK and AKs (1.2%), or AA, KK, and QQ (1.4%), or some other range and he's running hot/cold. But what you really need to do is determine how likely it is that after 150 hands a 1.33 pfr guy raises a range that includes hands like AQo and other hands that you have a chance against, do some fancy math, and go from there. Maybe this guy doesn't raise any hands from the blinds, which opens up his range out of the blinds somewhat. My experience is that this read is actually very solid and folding is probably right, but I'm sure I'd be drunk enough to 3-bet anyway.

As a side note, if I've played 150 hands with this idiot I'm bound to have a note on him that says he's limped with a premium hand, which lets me really narrow his range down. Sans that note, I raise.

Get a new mouse. Yours has jizzle on the button.

[SlantNGo]

[ QUOTE ]
1% PFR is about 13.25 hands (1326 total starting hands). There are 6 pocket aces and 6 6 pocket kings. That makes up most of the 1%. If you give the HUD a 3% error, he could be raising as many as about 53 hands, and you'll have a tough time reaching that number without including AK. In fact, you'll have a tough time getting up to 2% (given that you have JJ) without getting some AK hands thrown in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you played live before Aaron? Lots of low-limit loose-passive players will raise AA-QQ and maybe even JJ while limping AK. It's also definitely a possibility for a rock.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1% PFR is about 13.25 hands (1326 total starting hands). There are 6 pocket aces and 6 6 pocket kings. That makes up most of the 1%. If you give the HUD a 3% error, he could be raising as many as about 53 hands, and you'll have a tough time reaching that number without including AK. In fact, you'll have a tough time getting up to 2% (given that you have JJ) without getting some AK hands thrown in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you played live before Aaron? Lots of low-limit loose-passive players will raise AA-QQ and maybe even JJ while limping AK. It's also definitely a possibility for a rock.

[/ QUOTE ]

My live experience is limited, but I know that some players play as you have described. This isn't really the point.

AA-JJ gives you 24 hands, which is less than 2%. You need to throw in a couple AK hands to push it all the way up to 2%. You can say that you're rounding up to get to 2%, and I won't argue with you. But the point is that the stats are limited (1% error in the PFR is unreasonably tight - I was responding specifically to a 3% error situation). You can't deny the possibility that AK is getting raised here based on PFR = 1 alone. If Hero had notes or something to go with the stats, it would be a different story.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But this guy's numbers suggest that he doesn't raise AK here; even if we assume a decent deviation of like 3% true pfr AKs basically isn't in his hand range. Plus these super-tp types are usually more inclined to raise with big pairs than big overs regardless of if they're in the top x% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

1% PFR is about 13.25 hands (1326 total starting hands). There are 6 pocket aces and 6 6 pocket kings. That makes up most of the 1%. If you give the HUD a 3% error, he could be raising as many as about 53 hands, and you'll have a tough time reaching that number without including AK. In fact, you'll have a tough time getting up to 2% (given that you have JJ) without getting some AK hands thrown in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that suggesting a 3% margin of error is appropriate. This is a statistical question: What is the likelyhood of this sample being representative of the entire data set. It is quite possible that his best hand in this data set, the one that he decided to raise with was AJo. More accurately, we need a figure like: what is the probability of having AA-QQ not present in random sample of 150 hands. This should help us decide to make the call. I'm chintzing out on math again, because it's 5 p.m...time to go home.

grizzle...

i treybizzle to maximizzle my chizzles at wizzling the pizzle. if he cizzles i expizzle airlizzles or cowbizzles and slizzle the fizzle dizzle....

even with his low pfrizzle stizzles, i still expect big slizzle sizzled and offsizzle to be a big sizzle of his rangizzle, even banizzles (AQ) are possizzle. when this is the cizzle, i want the chizzle to get this pizzle heads up....

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But this guy's numbers suggest that he doesn't raise AK here; even if we assume a decent deviation of like 3% true pfr AKs basically isn't in his hand range. Plus these super-tp types are usually more inclined to raise with big pairs than big overs regardless of if they're in the top x% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

1% PFR is about 13.25 hands (1326 total starting hands). There are 6 pocket aces and 6 6 pocket kings. That makes up most of the 1%. If you give the HUD a 3% error, he could be raising as many as about 53 hands, and you'll have a tough time reaching that number without including AK. In fact, you'll have a tough time getting up to 2% (given that you have JJ) without getting some AK hands thrown in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that suggesting a 3% margin of error is appropriate. This is a statistical question: What is the likelyhood of this sample being representative of the entire data set. It is quite possible that his best hand in this data set, the one that he decided to raise with was AJo. More accurately, we need a figure like: what is the probability of having AA-QQ not present in random sample of 150 hands. This should help us decide to make the call. I'm chintzing out on math again, because it's 5 p.m...time to go home.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a statistician, but here's something to consider: In political polls, a sample size of 1500 or so ends up with an error around 3%. Our sample size is much smaller than 1500.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But this guy's numbers suggest that he doesn't raise AK here; even if we assume a decent deviation of like 3% true pfr AKs basically isn't in his hand range. Plus these super-tp types are usually more inclined to raise with big pairs than big overs regardless of if they're in the top x% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

1% PFR is about 13.25 hands (1326 total starting hands). There are 6 pocket aces and 6 6 pocket kings. That makes up most of the 1%. If you give the HUD a 3% error, he could be raising as many as about 53 hands, and you'll have a tough time reaching that number without including AK. In fact, you'll have a tough time getting up to 2% (given that you have JJ) without getting some AK hands thrown in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that suggesting a 3% margin of error is appropriate. This is a statistical question: What is the likelyhood of this sample being representative of the entire data set. It is quite possible that his best hand in this data set, the one that he decided to raise with was AJo. More accurately, we need a figure like: what is the probability of having AA-QQ not present in random sample of 150 hands. This should help us decide to make the call. I'm chintzing out on math again, because it's 5 p.m...time to go home.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a statistician, but here's something to consider: In political polls, a sample size of 1500 or so ends up with an error around 3%. Our sample size is much smaller than 1500.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our sample is ~10% of the entire set, which is fairly representative. A political poll of 1500 may be more like <1% of the entire sample.

I fold. I feel there is no way he has any card below a jack.

[Redd]

The 3% error of margin is my fault; I just picked an arbitary number (I was actually referring to a 2% margin, for a total 3% true pfr). But as Aaron pointed out my combinatrix were all wrong for that post anyways.

Aaron, you're completely right that if Villain has been running very cold for 150 hands that AKo/s is a possibility. Regardless, I still don't see how you're raising for value. If we assume Villain's range will include any AK combo, suited or unsuited, without being discounted, our equity is around 30%:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

19,870,449,984 games 150.337 secs 132,172,718 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 30.2506 % [ 00.30 00.00 ] { JJ }
Hand 2: 53.9030 % [ 00.54 00.00 ] { AA-JJ, AKs, AKo }
Hand 3: 15.8463 % [ 00.16 00.00 ] { random }

We go to around 23% if he'll only raise AKs from this position. Of course, the limper will likely have a better than random hand as well.

So we'll probably be able to cold-call profitably if he'll include all of the AK offsuits. It's hard to predict what will happen behind us and postflop but equitywise, it looks like close call between cc/fold if he'll only raise AKs here. Anybody know how we can we estimate the standard deviation in his pfr after n hands?

Unless he's raising more than this hand range, I can't see how we get value out of a 3-bet.

[robertsonjohn]

If you really believe your stats, logic says you should probably fold, but emotion, boredom and statistical margin of era may lead you to act otherwise.

As a meaningless aside, if you decide to call/3bet, and he leads out on a AKJ flop, what's your play?

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a statistician, but here's something to consider: In political polls, a sample size of 1500 or so ends up with an error around 3%. Our sample size is much smaller than 1500.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our sample is ~10% of the entire set, which is fairly representative. A political poll of 1500 may be more like <1% of the entire sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the sample size that matters, not the total number of possible hands.

Here's a thought experiment that should convince you this is true. Suppose you have a bucket of 10 balls, 5 black and 5 white. When you draw from the bucket, there's a 50% chance you will draw white. Every time you draw a ball, you put it back in the bucket. You do this 100 times. You will expect to have about 50 of each color drawn.

Now you repeat the experiment, but with a bucket containing 10 billion balls, 5 billion of each color. Each draw still has a 50% chance of being white. If you do this 100 times, you will expect to have about 50 of each color drawn.

The only factor that matters is the distribution, not the total number of balls in the bucket.

[Redd]

This isn't a fair comparison to the poll example. In the little bucket you're testing 1000% of the sample size. If you drew 1000% of the sample size from the big bucket (ie, 100 billion balls), you'd get a much closer %white to the true 50% probability.

Obviously if we poll 99% of the population we'll get a more accurate response than polling 1% of the population, regardless of population size.

But I don't mean to derail the thread - does anyone have a simple estimate of the deviation of pfr? If the Villain in the OP was 1% pfr over 1000 hands, it's a standard fold. If over 20 hands, it's a standard 3-bet. So the questions become:
1) At what number of hands does our read have to be over to justify a pf-fold? It's obviously somewhere between zero and 1000.
1) At what number of hands does our read have to be over to justify a cold-call (if any?)

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a fair comparison to the poll example. In the little bucket you're testing 1000% of the sample size. If you drew 1000% of the sample size from the big bucket (ie, 100 billion balls), you'd get a much closer %white to the true 50% probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

But each sample is statistically independent. It makes no sense to say you're testing larger than the size of the bucket. The only factor that matters is the number of draws because of the independence. This is the whole point! You can tell that the balls are distributed roughly 50-50 by taking 100 samples from a bucket with 10 balls and a bucket with 10 billion balls.

Here's another example. Imagine flipping one coin 100 times. You expect there to be about 50-50 split between heads and tails. Now flip 100 coins all at once. You've taken one sample of 100 coins instead of 100 samples of one coin. Do you expect there to be much difference? In the first case (by your terminology), you've sampled 50 times the sample size. In the second case, you've sampled 2^{-100} of the sample size. Do you expect any difference?

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if we poll 99% of the population we'll get a more accurate response than polling 1% of the population, regardless of population size.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the error. When you say "poll 99% of the population", you're assuming you never ask the same person twice. This means that your second sample is dependent upon the first one (because you can now no longer ask a particular individual).

[ QUOTE ]
But I don't mean to derail the thread - does anyone have a simple estimate of the deviation of pfr? If the Villain in the OP was 1% pfr over 1000 hands, it's a standard fold. If over 20 hands, it's a standard 3-bet. So the questions become:
1) At what number of hands does our read have to be over to justify a pf-fold? It's obviously somewhere between zero and 1000.
1) At what number of hands does our read have to be over to justify a cold-call (if any?)

[/ QUOTE ]

To answer your questions, I would need a read, not a HUD PFR value.

Here's a link: Sample size calculator (http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm). I'll quote you the relevant material for what we've been discussing above:

[ QUOTE ]
How many people are there in the group your sample represents? This may be the number of people in a city you are studying, the number of people who buy new cars, etc. Often you may not know the exact population size. This is not a problem. The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant, unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to emphasize the last condition because this is the part where it matters whether your samples are independent. Because they are referring to polling, they are not asking the same person twice. This comes into play when the sample is large relative to the total population. This does NOT come into play in the poker situation because each deal is independent of the others.

According to the top calculator, if you want to be 95% sure that villain's PFR is within 3%, you need 1066 hands. If you want to be within 2%, it's 2395 hands. (Be sure you give it a large population size, because this equates to independence, upon which EVERYTHING hinges.)

[Weatherhead03]

Folds. That or calling and folding unless you flopped a set.

[tiltaholic]

good discussion people.

so i posed the question mainly as a hypothetical to stimulate thought. in doing this, i intentionally left out many items that become fairly important (and which people brought up in the discussion so i won't repeat).

i was thinking of how the situation might change if we have QQ, or if the "stat read" is based on 100 hands, or 200, instead of 150. Or if there were no limpers. Or if the blinds were loose (or tight).

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Aaron, you're completely right that if Villain has been running very cold for 150 hands that AKo/s is a possibility. Regardless, I still don't see how you're raising for value. If we assume Villain's range will include any AK combo, suited or unsuited, without being discounted, our equity is around 30%:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

19,870,449,984 games 150.337 secs 132,172,718 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 30.2506 % [ 00.30 00.00 ] { JJ }
Hand 2: 53.9030 % [ 00.54 00.00 ] { AA-JJ, AKs, AKo }
Hand 3: 15.8463 % [ 00.16 00.00 ] { random }

We go to around 23% if he'll only raise AKs from this position. Of course, the limper will likely have a better than random hand as well.

...

Unless he's raising more than this hand range, I can't see how we get value out of a 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where we get back to the whole question of how reliable your stats are after 150 hands. It's very possible that villain is actually raising somewhere between 5-7% of his hands, but we've only seen him raise once or twice because he's not getting those hands. If you had a read to suggest that he's very rocky (and I do mean a read), then you can infer from that information that he's not as likely to raise those hands. The value of knowing he open-limped QQ in one particular hand is far more greater than knowing that he's raised twice in 150 hands.

Edit: Similarly, if you've seen him raise 99 UTG one hand, then you can infer that your 3-bet probably has good value.

[VBCurtis]

If we assume his raising range is independent of table conditions (i.e. number of limpers doesn't matter), then estimating his "real" PFR% is easy, statistically speaking. Raise/Not Raise is a binomial event, and the variance of such an event is given by np(1-p), where n is the number of trials (hands observed), p is the "real" PFR%. Std Dev is the square root of variance.

For this player, let's pretend "real" PFR is 2%. Then variance is (150)(.02)(.98), which is about 3. The square root of 3 is 1.7, roughly. This means after 150 hands, we would expect this 2% PFR rock to raise 3 times, with std deviation of 1.7. 90% confidence is about 2 Std Dev's, which means 0 raises and 6 raises (which would be 4% on a HUD) are within 90% interval for a "real" 2% PFR person.

Repeat for 3% "real" PFR: (150)(.03)(.97)=4.5 variance, sq root is about 2.2. Thus "avg" raise 4.5 times in sample, with 90% interval no raises and 9 raises. If you are an eternal optimist, 3% is the highest PFR you could assume, which is roughly AK, QQ-AA. Pokerstove that, and you're in trouble.

I don't think we need to be 90% certain of actual PFR to judge that we're WAY behind here, and should probably fold. Our pot equity vis-a-vis pokerstove might nearly justify cc'ing, but nearly all of us are either flopping a set or folding, which is clearly less equity than pokerstove implies. If you're playing JJ here because it's pretty and you hope to flop a set, you should also play 88-TT for same reasons; in fact, 88 might play better against his range, since more flops give you straight draws while totally missing him.

I'm interested in how anyone thinks this changes with QQ. I see no change, since his PFR range remains KK, AA, maybe AKs or AK. We're either coin-toss or dead meat. How powerful is the voice in your head: "QQ is pretty, I must play it"? If you think TT is an obvious fold, ask what QQ is OK against that TT isn't of his possible holdings.

This is my first post in micro- flame gently.
-Curtis

EDIT: Aaron's "maybe he's a 5% running bad": (150)(.05)(.95)=7.2 Sq root is 2.7, putting 90% confidence interval as 2.1 raises minimum (150*.05 minus 2 std dev's). This means there is a 5% chance he is a 5% PFR. (90% interval means 5% are below the interval and 5% are above the interval)