15/30 completing the small blind

[SoBeDude]

2 limpers to me, I have 82s. If I complete I'm getting 11-1 on my call.

Is that sufficient for this piece of crap? 11-1 sounds good, but 82s is a really horrible hand.

-Scott

[astroglide]

you really should start making these posts in the small stakes forum

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
2 limpers to me, I have 82s. If I complete I'm getting 11-1 on my call.

Is that sufficient for this piece of crap? 11-1 sounds good, but 82s is a really horrible hand.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

I complete with every hand from the SB in that game. Any two suited is a total no-brainer.

[Luke]

I'd toss in the $5 here with nearly all of my hands. That includes any 2 suited.

Luke

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
you really should start making these posts in the small stakes forum

[/ QUOTE ]

That so?

And I know of no small stakes games with this chip structure.

And, in a small stakes game the call is probably +EV due to the fact the players tend to be worse and there would tend to be more limpers.

If you look at the pokerroom stats for 82s out of the small blind, it is a loser. It's losing more than a quarter of a big bet.

-Scott

[astroglide]

yes, that is so. one does not need to "understand" the chip structure in order to answer this question. you may be playing mid-limits, but the majority of your questions fall into the beginner class and they bring down the average quality of this forum.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the pokerroom stats for 82s out of the small blind, it is a loser. It's losing more than a quarter of a big bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scott,

This is an argument for calling. If you fold the small blind, you are losing 1/3 of a big bet. As such, if you play as well postflop as the average Poker Room player (which you obviously do), then calling is at least .08 big bets better than folding.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
2 limpers to me, I have 82s. If I complete I'm getting 11-1 on my call.

Is that sufficient for this piece of crap? 11-1 sounds good, but 82s is a really horrible hand.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
call /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that is so. one does not need to "understand" the chip structure in order to answer this question. you may be playing mid-limits, but the majority of your questions fall into the beginner class and they bring down the average quality of this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Astro,

i think you are too harsh here. he IS in fact playing 15/30 games and the questions he asks involves mid limit players. the answers he get from the small stakes forum will surely not be as tailored to his games as ones he gets here.

and since there is no "beginners forum" or "experts forum", it is hard for him to post accordingly. on top of that, how does one truly know if he is a "beginner" or an "expert"?

Kenny

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the pokerroom stats for 82s out of the small blind, it is a loser. It's losing more than a quarter of a big bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scott,

This is an argument for calling. If you fold the small blind, you are losing 1/3 of a big bet. As such, if you play as well postflop as the average Poker Room player (which you obviously do), then calling is at least .08 big bets better than folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost. I'm spending 1/3 of a SMALL bet which is 1/6th of a big bet, and losing 1/4 of a big bet. And this is surely based on an average game of more than 2 opponents.

-Scott

[Ulysses]

There do appear to be a number of people starting poker now who jump straight into 15/30 (and why not if you have the money?). Also, a lot of people jumping quickly into online 10/20 through 30/60 after playing a small amount of online poker at lower limits. Unless there's a mid/beginner's forum as someone suggested in an earlier thread, this is prob the best place for them to post.

Maybe there is some merit to having a mid-limit/beginners section for guys like SoBe w/ basic questions like this.

[astroglide]

the only player worth considering is the big blind. this is a math question, he has the answer, and he is still unable to make heads or tails of it.

it's pretty easy for him to know if he is a beginner or an expert by reading the replies to his posts.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost. I'm spending 1/3 of a SMALL bet which is 1/6th of a big bet, and losing 1/4 of a big bet. And this is surely based on an average game of more than 2 opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's not right. When you fold the small blind, you are giving away $10, thus losing 1/3 of a big bet. When you call up the small blind, the hand's overall "win" rate, according to Poker Room, is -.25 big bets.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the Poker Room data, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost. I'm spending 1/3 of a SMALL bet which is 1/6th of a big bet, and losing 1/4 of a big bet. And this is surely based on an average game of more than 2 opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's not right. When you fold the small blind, you are giving away $10, thus losing 1/3 of a big bet. When you call up the small blind, the hand's overall "win" rate, according to Poker Room, is -.25 big bets.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the Poker Room data, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the data? but losing 1/4th of a big bet is still 1/4 x $30, or $7.50. And I'm putting in $5. What am I missing?

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

A few months ago, DS or MM posted saying he had changed his view on always completeing in the one chip SB in these games, and to now throw away some of the more trashy hands. I can't locate the post right now. and can't recall the range. I believe he was not specific.

Personally I hate hands that are 8-high and contain a 2.

Clearly with another caller or two, completing is a no-brainer. But I don't think wanting others opinions is a worthless discussion, nor does it bring down the quality of this forum.

You can always just ignore my posts, and if this is going to be the quality of your replies, I'd prefer it.

Ever heard the saying there is no such thing as a stupid question? If so, then it is YOU who are lowering the quality of this forum with your inane and pedantic replies.

-Scott

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
the only player worth considering is the big blind. this is a math question, he has the answer, and he is still unable to make heads or tails of it.

it's pretty easy for him to know if he is a beginner or an expert by reading the replies to his posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

teheheh /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the data? but losing 1/4th of a big bet is still 1/4 x $30, or $7.50. And I'm putting in $5. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistics take in to account the extra $5 that you're investing.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that is so. one does not need to "understand" the chip structure in order to answer this question. you may be playing mid-limits, but the majority of your questions fall into the beginner class and they bring down the average quality of this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ohh no he di-int /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost. I'm spending 1/3 of a SMALL bet which is 1/6th of a big bet, and losing 1/4 of a big bet. And this is surely based on an average game of more than 2 opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's not right. When you fold the small blind, you are giving away $10, thus losing 1/3 of a big bet. When you call up the small blind, the hand's overall "win" rate, according to Poker Room, is -.25 big bets.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the Poker Room data, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the data? but losing 1/4th of a big bet is still 1/4 x $30, or $7.50. And I'm putting in $5. What am I missing?

-Scott



[/ QUOTE ]

what BOTH OF YOU are missing is that the $10 you've put in IS NOT YOURS anymore. its part of the pot odds you get upon your call/fold/raise. the pokerroom stats are talking about the EV from a given position starting at 0 and totalling the money put in then adding the money won (on average) and then dividing by the # of times played. but the SB calculations on this site are problematic.

WHY?

because not all sb's are the same size. sometimes, poor players call in 3/6 for 2/3rds of a sb and end up losing a bunch. better players fold it. so OF THE PLAYERS WHO PLAY in that spot, most are necessarily bad because they chose to play in the first place. This is called selection bias.

the problem is further compounded by the fact that you are adding money put in as money you're "spending". until you CALL to complete with the 82s, you have "spent" nothing, zero, zilch. you're ev of folding here is ZERO! not -10 in the 15/30. the VALUE that you GAIN or LOSE from folding when the decision to put money in the pot comes up is 0 in this situation when you fold.

its ok, though. this is a common mistake. just realize that the -.25bb figure is a result of differing blind structures, being played by differing players in different games. it states that ON AVERAGE, of all the players who choose to play 82s in the sb, the total expected value given their investment (the CALL) is -1/2 a sb.

now, on to whether to call. personally, in party 15/30, i call with any two suiteds. the extra equity from being suited makes the pot odds i get pretty good. i know i can fold it easily, and i know i get paid off if i flop good and draw correctly. i fold hands like k2o, j2o and most other nonsuited highlo combos because you cannot play them as easily and you tend to lose money with them. so why waste $5 for a chance to lose $60 or more when you do play and don't do it correctly.

questions? comments?
-Barron

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
until you CALL to complete with the 82s, you have "spent" nothing, zero, zilch. you're ev of folding here is ZERO! not -10 in the 15/30. the VALUE that you GAIN or LOSE from folding when the decision to put money in the pot comes up is 0 in this situation when you fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost positive that this is wrong. Can a more experienced player please chime in?

[astroglide]

he is correct. according to the technical definition of ev, folding preflop is always 0. that isn't to say, though, that you may be gaining or losing money in the long run by doing it.

in general i think the consideration is a little silly, as more often than not it seems to result in confusion or debate. what matters to people is if they will win or lose money.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]

in general i think the consideration is a little silly, as more often than not it seems to result in confusion or debate. what matters to people is if they will win or lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand that astro, but they were both talking explicitly about the EV of the hand there...thats all.

-Barron

[astroglide]

i'm hating the game, not the player.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm hating the game, not the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

and let me add, "DAMN pimpin' is eeeeasy"
-Barron

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
until you CALL to complete with the 82s, you have "spent" nothing, zero, zilch. you're ev of folding here is ZERO! not -10 in the 15/30. the VALUE that you GAIN or LOSE from folding when the decision to put money in the pot comes up is 0 in this situation when you fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost positive that this is wrong. Can a more experienced player please chime in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bear is correct. Look at the stats for, say, Q6o in SB, BB, UTG: -0.28 -0.38 -0.11. That should be sufficient to clarify this.

The overall EV of a hand in a certain position is a different thing than the EV of calling/folding/raising at any given point. EV hand != EV decision. Here, we know that EV of folding is 0. Which will result in an overall hand EV of -.33BB. If calling results in an overall hand EV of better than -.33BB, then calling is +EV.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
until you CALL to complete with the 82s, you have "spent" nothing, zero, zilch. you're ev of folding here is ZERO! not -10 in the 15/30. the VALUE that you GAIN or LOSE from folding when the decision to put money in the pot comes up is 0 in this situation when you fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost positive that this is wrong. Can a more experienced player please chime in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bear is correct. Look at the stats for, say, Q6o in SB, BB, UTG: -0.28 -0.38 -0.11. That should be sufficient to clarify this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ulysses,

what does this clarify? and how does it clarify it? i think you're saying the ev of folding/calling/raising here is different than the overall ev of the hand, in which case you are correct. but what does losing more on average in the BB have to do with clarifying this point? if that wasn't your point, what is?

[ QUOTE ]

The overall EV of a hand in a certain position is a different thing than the EV of calling/folding/raising at any given point. EV hand != EV decision. Here, we know that EV of folding is 0. Which will result in an overall hand EV of -.33BB. If calling results in an overall hand EV of better than -.33BB, then calling is +EV.


[/ QUOTE ]

now even i'm a bit clueless. how is the overall ev now less after folding? where did the extra 5% of a bb loss come from?

please clarify your points. thanks
-Barron

[Gabe]

Hey the way the mid-limit games have been playing lately, I think I should start weeding through the Small Stakes Forum. I'll bet there is stuff in there I haven't thought of. Here in Los Angeles the games have never been looser.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
now even i'm a bit clueless. how is the overall ev now less after folding? where did the extra 5% of a bb loss come from?

please clarify your points. thanks
-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]
Extra 5% ? I'm not sure what are you talking about, but if you fold SB your loss on this hand is $10 = 0.33 BB.
Ulysses is correct, as always.

[DcifrThs]

from -.28 to -.33. that is -.28 bb's so another 5% out of that 100 scale gets us to -.33.

i was looking at the wrong thing again. -.33 is 1/3 of 30 so easily 1/3 of a bb. that is the total loss on the hand. he is correct in that regard...i was wondering bout the other stuff too.
-Barron

[Roy Hobbs]

I don't know how much you want to complain about the quality of the forum going down...it might result in more people thinking that your posts are good.

RH

[astroglide]

thanks. or i'm offended. i don't know.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
what does this clarify? and how does it clarify it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It clarifies that in the PokerRoom EV stats, the EV is based on starting from before you put out the blinds. Part of the EV of 82s in the SB is the fact that you lose .33BB in the hand if you don't complete.

Look, the question here is simple. Is completing with a given hand plus or minus EV?

If you fold, a decision with EV = 0, your EV for the hand will be -.33BB.

If by calling, the overall EV of the hand is -.25, then completing the SB is a +EV decision. If by calling, the overall EV of the hand is -.45, then completing the SB is a -EV decision.

The PokerRoom numbers I showed clarify that the EV for the hand includes the money you contribute in the blinds. Or else people are playing Q6o very strangely from the blinds.


[ QUOTE ]
if that wasn't your point, what is?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that your response to Bear was incorrect. The EV of the hand is not 0 when you fold the SB. It is -.33BB.

[ QUOTE ]
now even i'm a bit clueless. how is the overall ev now less after folding? where did the extra 5% of a bb loss come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

We know what the overall EV is when you fold. It is -.33BB. The difference comes from making a slight profit the times you complete.

If you are still confused, think of it like this.

You play a 15/30 poker game. You start with $100. Every hand, you will be in the small blind w/ 82s. You fold every time.

You contend that the EV of 82s in the SB when you fold = 0, thus after 10 hands you will have $100.

I contend that after 10 hands you will lose 10*(.33BB) = $100 and you will have $0.

Someone can do the math and figure out which is correct.

[Sal Allegra]

Raise and try to steal on the flop, and if your re-raised, dump it, but if they fold, show the hand, then change gears, play good starters, and get some more calls of off your ligit hands.

[Ulysses]

To be clear, the EV of folding always = 0. The question here is whether calling has EV > 0.

The PokerRoom #s reflect the expected win/loss of a hand starting from prior to any blind money being put in.

So, if one is using those numbers to decide whether calling is a +EV decision or not, one needs to take into account that in the small blind, the number to compare to is -.33BB (the amount you lose in the hand when you fold) as opposed to 0 (the EV of the decision to fold).

[astroglide]

can somebody please clarify this for me? dci says that folding is 0 ev, and calling is +ev. uly says that folding is 0 ev, and calling is +ev. i have agreed. where is the debate?

[SoBeDude]

Ulysses,

You rock, as usual.

Thanks for the very clear explanation. The call is +EV for the games represented in the pokerroom stats .

I'm willing to bet the average pokerroom hand has more than 2 opponents, and each opponent less than the average will have a significant effect on the EV of the hand. And lets face it, we don't have a lot of wiggle room here with this call.

Lets just say the average hand has 3.5 opponents when you complete the SB, then completing with 2 opponents must be -EV.

Do you agree?

Thanks again,

-Scott

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
To be clear, the EV of folding always = 0. The question here is whether calling has EV > 0.

The PokerRoom #s reflect the expected win/loss of a hand starting from prior to any blind money being put in.

So, if one is using those numbers to decide whether calling is a +EV decision or not, one needs to take into account that in the small blind, the number to compare to is -.33BB (the amount you lose in the hand when you fold) as opposed to 0 (the EV of the decision to fold).

[/ QUOTE ]

im with you. stupid mistakes as usual.

now my question shifts to the blind structure used to compute these #'s. if the blind goes in and is counted, it creates biases if the blinds are all different sizes and structures.

in any case, it is clear, then, from what you say that you must call here in a 15/30 game. but what about a 3/6? hand only costs now 1/6 of a bb instead of 1/3. cost of completion is now 2/6 or 1/3 bbs. those that complete with 82s have a -.25 ev on average and only cost themselves -.16666 by tossing the hand.

so according to the chart, its correct to call in 15/30 and fold in 3/6. personally i agree with this and would do likewise.

but was that the intended purpose of the chart? how does it account for the different frequencies each blind is encountered? or is it done at one limit? just curious.

thanks again ulysses
-Barron

[DcifrThs]

it was a semantic debade based on my poor comprehension of the stats and stupid mistake. its all cleared up. we agree. no debate. EV of folding is 0. ev of calling is + (-.28- (-.33)). EV of HAND is -.33 given the fold. at least i hope i got that right lol.
-Barron

[Nightwish]

I skimmed through the replies (so pardon me if I missed it), but I didn't see anyone mention the fact that you don't get to complete the action on this round. The BB does. Therefore, the probability of the BB raising is critically important here.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the probability of the BB raising is critically important here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
The call is +EV for the games represented in the pokerroom stats .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And for this specific scenario, those stats probably only have marginal significance, but at least it's something.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets just say the average hand has 3.5 opponents when you complete the SB, then completing with 2 opponents must be -EV.
..
Do you agree?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I probably agree. In general, I fold more of this stuff in the SB than most, since I learned a lot of stuff from watching Tommy.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

now my question shifts to the blind structure used to compute these #'s. if the blind goes in and is counted, it creates biases if the blinds are all different sizes and structures.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said wrt both the biases due to the different blind sizes/structures and reasons why you would call in a multi-way 15/30 pot are all reasonable and likely correct.

I had two quibbles wrt your post.

One was semantic in nature - EV of the "decision" vs EV of the "hand"

The other was an important distinction - understanding that the PokerRoom stats reflect EV from prior to putting in the blinds.

I think we are all talking from the same frame of reference now, regardless of what the "correct" or "standard" definitions are.

[ QUOTE ]
in any case, it is clear, then, from what you say that you must call here in a 15/30 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not necessarily. Just clear if we believe those numbers are the right numbers for a 15/30 game, which they aren't. /images/graemlins/grin.gif I think your comments wrt when to complete v. not in your initial post were the right way to look at this.

[ QUOTE ]
but was that the intended purpose of the chart? how does it account for the different frequencies each blind is encountered? or is it done at one limit? just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really the chart is not terribly useful for specific situations like this. You can slice it by position, limit, etc. but I think the more granular/precise you get, the less accurate your conclusions are likely to be. I think the main benefit of the pokerroom stats are to get a general idea of the relative strength of different hands in different positions and v. different numbers of players.

[DiamondDave]

You could fold 82s for one chip in the SB and save your energy for making decisions in more favorable spots.

Or you could look at the two limpers and the big blind and ask yourself if you want to play your hand against those particular opponents at that point in time.

It probably isn't worth it, even if those three players are really passive but will pay you off. Maybe if they don't know that a flush beats a straight...

[Pipedream]

All this talk about the simplicity of your question and look at the debates it's caused. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yes complete in the SB in that structured game with any two suited.

Pipedream

[George Rice]

You need about 15:1 implied odds to call in this spot. You're getting 11:1 pot odds, so there's no doubt that you'll get there if the BB doesn't raise. If the BB raises, then you'll be getting 7:1 on calling the raise, not too good, a borderline situation. Combining the two possiblities clearly indicates a call for 1/3 small bet.