SurfDude
12-28-2003, 08:53 PM
Hi all,
I've been reading both books listed in the title of this post. Most of the concepts in these books were understood after the first reading. There are, however, a few that I can't make sense of. There are also a few that seem to have only one logical answer, but are worded in such a way as to cause confusion. Here they are:
Hold 'Em Poker (HE) p. 65
"One last situation that seems to confuse many players is this: your opponent has bet, and you know he might be on the come but probably isn't. Be sure to adjust your pot odds to reflect the added possibility that he _makes_ his hand when he is on the come. If there is one card to come, and you feel there is a 20 percent chance that the bettor is on the come, it seems that you can take 5-to-1 with a mediocre hand. However, your opponent will actually win 80 percent plus 4 percent of the time (1/5 of 20 percent) thereby making him over a 5-to-1 favorite. When there are two cards to come, it is even more dangerous to call simply because you think he has a four-flush and you can beat that (for now)."
I understand that he will win the 80% of the time that he already has the best hand. I also understand that he will win the times that he is on the come and makes his hand. As such I agree with the _percentages_ shown. However, according to p. 106, the method used to calculate odds from percentages is as follows: "To change a percentage to odds (to 1), subtract the percentage in the table from 100 and divide the result by this same percentage. Example: To change 27.8 percent to odds, subtract from 100 (72.2) and divide the result by 27.8 (2.597). Thus 27.8 percent is the same as 2.597-to-1."
Following this method for quoted percentage if the opponent already has the best hand (80%) we obtain 4:1 odds against (100%-20%=%80 80%/20%= 4). Thus, when when we add the additional probability of our opponent making his hand, he becomes better than a 4-to-1 one favorite _NOT_ better than a 5-to-1 favorite as the passage states. The only way to obtain 5:1 is to state the odds in the format of "Total Outcomes : Specific Outcome", which is a format I've never seen used yet in poker. The usual format is "Total Wins : Total Losses" just as we use in pot odds.
Next, pp. 99-100 of The Theory of Poker (TOP)
"Suppose you are playing $10-$20 hold 'em." ... "There is one more card to come and $60 in the pot." ... "let's assume you are holding a hand that you assess as having a 30 percent chance of winding up the winner" ... "had you bet only for value - that is, with the certainty you opponent will call - you would also be making an incorrect play since you have estimated that you are a 7-to-3 underdog. You are wagering even money (your $20 bet for a $20 call) when the odds are 2 1/3-to-1 against your winning."
The key part here that I don't understand is the statement that a bet for value is an even money bet. If I make my hand I will win the call _and_ the pot ($60+$20=$80) rather than just the call ($20 only). If I don't make my hand I will lose the $20 bet assuming that I intend to check and fold on the last round of betting. Thus my odds would be 80:20 against, or, 4:1 against. Since my odds of making the hand are 2.33:1 against, it does appear that I am getting sufficient pot odds to merit a bet or call (though the bet adds the possibility of my opponent folding the best hand, and thus is the better play). Can someone explain why a bet for value here is even money even though making my hand will win the pot and the call?
TOP p.153
"when a very loose player raises [with a king door card in seven stud] in the same spot and and everyone ahead of you folds, you might reraise with jacks, not as a semi-bluff but as a bet for value."
Since I am betting with the intention of being called, does this mean that against a very loose player I'm figuring the odds of him having kings is relatively low? This as opposed to folding against a tight player who raises with a kind door card since the odds of him actually having kings is far greater?
TOP pp. 139,141
"Whenyou plan to check-raise with several players still in the pot, you need to consider the position of the player you expect will bet because that position determines the kind of hand you check-raise with, to a large extent. Let's say you have made hidden kings up on fifth street, and the player representing queens is to your _right_. Kings up is a fairly good hand but not a great hand, and you'd like to get everybody out so they don't draw out on your two pair. You check, and when the player with queens bets, you raise. You are forcing everyone else in the hand to call a double bet, the original bet and your immediate raise, and they will almost certainly fold. You don't mind the queens calling your raise, for you're a big favorite over that player. However, if he folds, that's fine too."
I understand that logic of the check-raise in eliminating players. My confusion arises from the language used in this example. I am accustomed to thinking of players to my right as being those who bet _before_ me. Following from that, players to my left are those who bet _after_ me. Thus, if I am sitting in first position, the button would be to my _far left_ not to my right. If I were the dealer, then the man under the gun would be to my _far right_ rather than to my left. Using the terms "right" or "left" to cross the boundary between first and last base leads to confusion since the terms "left" or "right" no longer confer any information about the position of the players relative to first position. As a result, saying "the bettor is to my right" could mean that he was in first position and I have to call a bet or raise as my first action. Or, it could mean that he is in last position and I am in early position, thus forcing me to call a bet or raise after I have initially checked. In the first instance a check-raise is clearly impossible since I will never get the opportunity to check. As a result, information about position of the bettor relative to myself and to first base must be _inferred_ from other details given. "Right" and "left" no longer convey such information all in themselves. I can _infer_ in the quoted text that a bettor to my right is in late position and that I am in relatively early position _only_ because the example states that I have already checked. As such, I feel it is far more precise and less confusing to use the _absolute_ position rather than the _relative_ position when giving examples. One should say "late position" or "early position" rather than "left" or "right." When sitting at a table, whether a player is to your left or right does not change. Their position _relative_ to first base does change as the button moves (for Hold 'Em).
On page 141, there is an example where a player to the _immediate_ right bets _after_ you do. The _only_ time this can occur is when you are seated at first base. The majority of the time, however, this cannot happen. Thus, the example has one and only one application with regard to positional considerations.
Thanks all!
Cheers,
SurfDude
I've been reading both books listed in the title of this post. Most of the concepts in these books were understood after the first reading. There are, however, a few that I can't make sense of. There are also a few that seem to have only one logical answer, but are worded in such a way as to cause confusion. Here they are:
Hold 'Em Poker (HE) p. 65
"One last situation that seems to confuse many players is this: your opponent has bet, and you know he might be on the come but probably isn't. Be sure to adjust your pot odds to reflect the added possibility that he _makes_ his hand when he is on the come. If there is one card to come, and you feel there is a 20 percent chance that the bettor is on the come, it seems that you can take 5-to-1 with a mediocre hand. However, your opponent will actually win 80 percent plus 4 percent of the time (1/5 of 20 percent) thereby making him over a 5-to-1 favorite. When there are two cards to come, it is even more dangerous to call simply because you think he has a four-flush and you can beat that (for now)."
I understand that he will win the 80% of the time that he already has the best hand. I also understand that he will win the times that he is on the come and makes his hand. As such I agree with the _percentages_ shown. However, according to p. 106, the method used to calculate odds from percentages is as follows: "To change a percentage to odds (to 1), subtract the percentage in the table from 100 and divide the result by this same percentage. Example: To change 27.8 percent to odds, subtract from 100 (72.2) and divide the result by 27.8 (2.597). Thus 27.8 percent is the same as 2.597-to-1."
Following this method for quoted percentage if the opponent already has the best hand (80%) we obtain 4:1 odds against (100%-20%=%80 80%/20%= 4). Thus, when when we add the additional probability of our opponent making his hand, he becomes better than a 4-to-1 one favorite _NOT_ better than a 5-to-1 favorite as the passage states. The only way to obtain 5:1 is to state the odds in the format of "Total Outcomes : Specific Outcome", which is a format I've never seen used yet in poker. The usual format is "Total Wins : Total Losses" just as we use in pot odds.
Next, pp. 99-100 of The Theory of Poker (TOP)
"Suppose you are playing $10-$20 hold 'em." ... "There is one more card to come and $60 in the pot." ... "let's assume you are holding a hand that you assess as having a 30 percent chance of winding up the winner" ... "had you bet only for value - that is, with the certainty you opponent will call - you would also be making an incorrect play since you have estimated that you are a 7-to-3 underdog. You are wagering even money (your $20 bet for a $20 call) when the odds are 2 1/3-to-1 against your winning."
The key part here that I don't understand is the statement that a bet for value is an even money bet. If I make my hand I will win the call _and_ the pot ($60+$20=$80) rather than just the call ($20 only). If I don't make my hand I will lose the $20 bet assuming that I intend to check and fold on the last round of betting. Thus my odds would be 80:20 against, or, 4:1 against. Since my odds of making the hand are 2.33:1 against, it does appear that I am getting sufficient pot odds to merit a bet or call (though the bet adds the possibility of my opponent folding the best hand, and thus is the better play). Can someone explain why a bet for value here is even money even though making my hand will win the pot and the call?
TOP p.153
"when a very loose player raises [with a king door card in seven stud] in the same spot and and everyone ahead of you folds, you might reraise with jacks, not as a semi-bluff but as a bet for value."
Since I am betting with the intention of being called, does this mean that against a very loose player I'm figuring the odds of him having kings is relatively low? This as opposed to folding against a tight player who raises with a kind door card since the odds of him actually having kings is far greater?
TOP pp. 139,141
"Whenyou plan to check-raise with several players still in the pot, you need to consider the position of the player you expect will bet because that position determines the kind of hand you check-raise with, to a large extent. Let's say you have made hidden kings up on fifth street, and the player representing queens is to your _right_. Kings up is a fairly good hand but not a great hand, and you'd like to get everybody out so they don't draw out on your two pair. You check, and when the player with queens bets, you raise. You are forcing everyone else in the hand to call a double bet, the original bet and your immediate raise, and they will almost certainly fold. You don't mind the queens calling your raise, for you're a big favorite over that player. However, if he folds, that's fine too."
I understand that logic of the check-raise in eliminating players. My confusion arises from the language used in this example. I am accustomed to thinking of players to my right as being those who bet _before_ me. Following from that, players to my left are those who bet _after_ me. Thus, if I am sitting in first position, the button would be to my _far left_ not to my right. If I were the dealer, then the man under the gun would be to my _far right_ rather than to my left. Using the terms "right" or "left" to cross the boundary between first and last base leads to confusion since the terms "left" or "right" no longer confer any information about the position of the players relative to first position. As a result, saying "the bettor is to my right" could mean that he was in first position and I have to call a bet or raise as my first action. Or, it could mean that he is in last position and I am in early position, thus forcing me to call a bet or raise after I have initially checked. In the first instance a check-raise is clearly impossible since I will never get the opportunity to check. As a result, information about position of the bettor relative to myself and to first base must be _inferred_ from other details given. "Right" and "left" no longer convey such information all in themselves. I can _infer_ in the quoted text that a bettor to my right is in late position and that I am in relatively early position _only_ because the example states that I have already checked. As such, I feel it is far more precise and less confusing to use the _absolute_ position rather than the _relative_ position when giving examples. One should say "late position" or "early position" rather than "left" or "right." When sitting at a table, whether a player is to your left or right does not change. Their position _relative_ to first base does change as the button moves (for Hold 'Em).
On page 141, there is an example where a player to the _immediate_ right bets _after_ you do. The _only_ time this can occur is when you are seated at first base. The majority of the time, however, this cannot happen. Thus, the example has one and only one application with regard to positional considerations.
Thanks all!
Cheers,
SurfDude