Two Hypothetical Extremes

[David Sklansky]

I was recently asked whether you ought to do better in games where players are very loose or where they are very predictable. One way to examine this question is to look at two extreme examples.

In the first 80-160 game you are using marked cards. You know everyone's cards who sees the flop (But you don't know what's coming. We also stipulate for the sake of this problem that you do not know the cards of those who folded preflop.) Your opponents are all world class players. However we will stipulate that you need not worry that they will "catch on", so you never have to disguise the fact you have this knowledge.

In the second 80-160 no one folds unless they have no draw to an overpair or better.

Which game is worth more? Why?

[ZeeJustin]

The second game is worth a lot more. In the first game, you still have to play relatively tight. The pots you do win will generally be small. In the second game, every pot you win will be ginormous. Of course your variance will be about 7230482 times bigger in the second game too.
-Justin Bonomo

[Senor Choppy]

It seems like truly perfect information would win out over insane opponents.

The loose opponents example is something a lot of low limit players face everyday. It forces you to play less hands postflop and wait around for big hands or big draws. The other example allows you to play a variety of hands that you wouldn't dream about otherwise. The more hands you can play profitable, the more money you're capable of making.

As far loose vs. predictable in a normal sense, I think loose is worth more to average players while predictable is worth more to experts.

[SoBeDude]

Accurate information seems like it would be worth far more than a loose/high varience game.

In the second game, the 'bad beats' will seriously impact your win rate.

Also since in a big limit game, there is more bluffing and semi-bluffing. And knowing when your opponents are bluffing, you can make the right call/fold/raise in each situation.

-Scott

[SpicyF]

Not that it's all that important, but in the 2nd scenario you say no one will fold unless they have no draw to an overpair or better. To me this feels that you would be the one betting and other's only checkcalling. If that would be the scenario (and I would think not) the second game would be more profitable than the first.

But if not, the first game where you get the hand information would be more profitable then the second one. If not your table image gets completly ruined by doing the right move at any given time /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[felson]

The second game is worth much more. In the first game, you can occasionally buy yourself a pot, when your opponents' hands are marginal; you can certainly win yourself a number of extra bets. But your opponents won't make many mistakes, and the pots will be small.

In the second game, your opponents will be making tons of mistakes, and the pots will be huge. You won't always know where you stand, but they will still be making far more mistakes than you will.

In the first game, you can trick your opponents into occasional mistakes. In the second game, your opponents will make mistakes constantly.

[all luck no skill]

Hello David,

I believe the first game would be more profitable. You would no longer be playing a game of incomplete information. Thus, every decision you make could be seen as one that is +EV. Since your opponents act in a predictable manner, you would know how they would react to certain board cards. You would be able to maximize your value on every hand.

You would be able to profit without holding 'good' cards. In the second game you would be required to wait until you had a better hand and bet in terms of value. You would be forced to withstand huge variance, whereas the first scenario would have virtually none.

[soda]

This is easy.

You will make a lot more money in the first game. World class players or not, they are giving up a huge advantage to you when you know their cards. So, they might be world class, but you are a golden god. Given you know everyone's cards at the table, you can make near perfect decisions every time. Furthermore, you will be playing close to every single hand and winning without showing down a huge percentage of the time. Bluffing will bring home tons of money in this situation and you will also know when you have set over set, set under set, etc. World class players tend to be aggressive and you will be able to use that aggression against them in all of the correct scenarios.

The second game can only be more profitable than the first if the players never bet or raise. If this is the case and you are the only person betting, then I'd have to think more about whether you can make even more money in this game. But, if these players are allowed to bet and raise in this example, then you are going to win less than example 1.

It's not even close.

soda

[J.A.Sucker]

You wouldn't have to play that tight at all in the first game. I would play a ton of hands with position, even for a raise. The reason you fold a hand like T8s on the button vs a raiser is because there is a large likeliehood of him having a big pair. If you know he doesn't, then you'd play. This is doubly true if you know exactly what he has.

[J.A.Sucker]

You'd make a ton in the marked cards game. You'd always make the right decision, and you'd repeatedly put the WCP's in tough spots. Plus, you take away a lot of their tools, namely bluffing, semi-bluffing, and many positional advantages.

The second game would induce a "schooling effect" where their mistakes won't be so bad. This is doubly true if they are all calling and never betting/raising each other out. It would be impossible to make a mistake calling on the flop in such big pots, unless you flopped a true monster, which just doesn't happen very often.

[Analyst]

The first game should be beatable, no, make that crush-able, by any halfway decent player.

The second game is just like many low-limit games in real life, but with different color chips. Still beatable, but a lot more work and higher variance than the first. Your average win rate may, just possibly, be higher than in case one - after all, you're dealing with loose players rather than tight pros, so bigger pots to win - but I don't think so and the risk is certainly much higher in any case.

[J.A.Sucker]

Hi Frank,

I'm not so sure that the calling station game would be more profitable. I assume that 9 opponents will see the flop every time, and most everyone will be getting to the turn (say 5). This now means that the people will be getting over 8-1 on the turn to draw at things. I don't think that you could make many mistakes drawing for 8-1 or even more. If there are maniacs in the game, then these odds may get hurt for some drawers.

Glad to see you posting on the board; you're a valuable asset to it, for sure.

[andyfox]

In the first game, having 100% information effectively eliminates the world-class status from your opponents. They won't be able to make more from you than average players on their winning hands; in fact they'll make less. And they won't be able to get you to surrender hands that have them beat when they're making what would normally be a world-class play at the pot.

I think this game will yield more $ than the second game, where the fish will be, in effect, schooling together to make their loose calls less bad with each additional call.

[mike l.]

i already play in the second game every day and it's a very good game indeed, but the first game would be even more proftiable.

[Clarkmeister]

My problem with this hypothetical is that only one of the two examples is actually extreme.

That is, that while players can be readable, you can never find any actual game even close to example 1. Example 2, however, occurs in games all over the place on a daily basis in games up to 40-80.

[Kevin J]

You'd play many more hands in game #2 and be able to make the perfect play every time. This has to be more profitable than waiting for loose calls.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with this hypothetical is that only one of the two examples is actually extreme.

That is, that while players can be readable, you can never find any actual game even close to example 1. Example 2, however, occurs in games all over the place on a daily basis in games up to 40-80.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clark my man, if I ask you whom you'd rather sleep with: Pamela Anderson or Carmen Electra - Are you gonna tell me you'd don't like the hypothetical because you're not likely to get either of them?

The answer, by the way, is the marked cards scenario is way way, way more profitable. A lot of you were way off.

[J_V]

It wouldn't matter either way, I don't think Spicy.

[Duggers]

I would think you would play TONS of hands in scenario 1. You always know if you have best hand - I would think all but the worst hands would be +EV.....bad hands lose money becasue they are so difficult to play. For example, pocket 2s on a AKQ flop - you must fold in normal game but in game 1 you can see when you are ahead and continue playing if appropriate.

I can't imagine these two games are even close......

[ZeeJustin]

I guess this question is more complicated than I thought, but I am definately sticking with my answer. Here is another take on it:

Fundamental theorum of poker (grossly paraphrased): whenever your opponent plays the same way he would if he could see your cards, you lose, and vice versa.

In the first game, you will always be playing correctly according to the fundamental theorom. The problem is, the large majority of the time, your opponents will be too. Occassionally they won't, and you will profit from it, but this won't happen too often.

In the second game, every hand will contain numerous misplays according to the fundamental theorom. Unfortunately, you will make bad plays according to TFTOP, but your opponents will make sooo many more that this will more than make up for it.

[ZeeJustin]

UTG raises with AA. Everyone folds to you on the button. What hands (if any) do you play?

UTG raises with AKo. Everyone folds to you on the button. Are you gonna be playing any 2 cards that aren't dominated? I really don't think this can be profitable against a WCP.

The times you do decide to play worse hands, is your EV really that great?

[SpicyF]

Hi sucker,

with the callingstation game, I agree that maybe I was too hasty to say that game 2 might be more profitable under the circumstances I said. But even so that the times they do get their break-even or +EV odds on turn, dont you agree that you would be a huge winner in this game?

I dont remember if I said in my original post that I thought it would be very close in which game would be more profitable than the other.

But with the first stipulated "rules" by D.S I agree wholeheartedly that the game where you can see the cards are the most profitable.

And ty for the kind words!

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
In the second 80-160 no one folds unless they have no draw to an overpair or better.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, this means that no one ever folds preflop. It means that no one ever folds any pair after the flop, any 3 flush, any back door straight draw, or even a single overcard.

Do you realize how much action you will get on your made hands? Those pots will be HUGE. 5 players on average would see each hand to the river regardless of how much action there is.

[Clarkmeister]

"Who cares?"

Well, to spell it out, my issue is this:

David says: "One way to examine this question is to look at two extreme examples."

In essence he is saying that we can derive the answer to the question of whether overly loose or overly predictable opponents are more profitable by answering this hypothetical with two extremes.

While this type of thinking can indeed be useful for many types of problems, in this specific case it's not useful at all. This is because one of the "extremes" happens routinely (or at least a very reasonable facimile) and isn't really that extreme at all. The other extreme is so extreme that it is light years removed from any semblence of something that happens in a real game, even against the most readable of opponents.

Because of this, I don't think this hypothetical achieves its goal of helping to point out the correct answer of the original question. That's my only real point.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is because one of the "extremes" happens routinely (or at least a very reasonable facimile) and isn't really that extreme at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. I haven't seen play money tables nearly as good as the game David is describing.

[Ulysses]

What Andy said.

[SpicyF]

JV,

maybe, maybe not..

In both games you will lose pots, and with the 2nd game (whereas they only check-call) you will lose about the same amount as when you lose a pot in the first game. You will lose more often, but the pots you win will be very much larger than in game 1. So I think it's a close call.

But as in D.S original example game 1 is by far more profitable.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Clark my man, if I ask you whom you'd rather sleep with: Pamela Anderson or Carmen Electra - Are you gonna tell me you'd don't like the hypothetical because you're not likely to get either of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at his picture, JV. That guy easily gets those two.

The correct answer, BTW, is Carmen.

[mike l.]

"The correct answer, BTW, is Carmen."

hands down. pa's got hep. ick.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
To me this feels that you would be the one betting and other's only checkcalling. If that would be the scenario (and I would think not) the second game would be more profitable than the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that would actually make the second game far less profitable. There will be so many people in each hand without a fold button, that you would really prefer to have the pots be capped on every street rather than have simply just a bet and a bunch of calls.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
And ty for the kind words!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I said Spicy Rules in a different thread and you forgot to thank me!!!!

BTW, to those who might not be familiar with him, when it comes to threads like "who are expert players at 2+2," Spicy's name should be among the top of the list, far above some of us more frequent posters.

As an added bonus, Spicy is CRAZY!!!!!!!!!

[SpicyF]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that would actually make the second game far less profitable. There will be so many people in each hand without a fold button, that you would really prefer to have the pots be capped on every street rather than have simply just a bet and a bunch of calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but it's getting to extreme now since that way you have to make a rule on which hands people will bet/raise with. I mean the poor souls with one overcard draw ain't likely to start a raising war!

And also, if you wouldn't know what the bet/raise standards where, you would have to fold many many more hands. I mean your TPTK ain't really the favourite over 6 guys who just ate raise-it-up pasta for breakfast!

[SpicyF]

[ QUOTE ]
As an added bonus, Spicy is CRAZY!!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This, is without a doubt true!

And thanks!

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean the poor souls with one overcard draw ain't likely to start a raising war!

[/ QUOTE ]

The way David described the game, every player will see every flop. Someone is really going to like the flop almost every time.

[Duggers]

I think your presumtion that the pros will make relativley few mistakes according to the FToP is not correct. I would imagine a table of pros would make mistakes most every hand. The FToP is impossible to come even close to living up to.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The second game would induce a "schooling effect" where their mistakes won't be so bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming your comment applies mostly to postflop play. Even if this is true, the amount of EV lost from each player preflop would be more than enough to make this game more profitable than the first.

[cero_z]

Hi David,
Game #1 is much more profitable, as long as you are not extremely readable by the WCPs. You have turned yourself into a WCP by virtue of reading hands perfectly, and your later round decisions will be perfect. Plus (and most importantly), you will get tons of action, since the WCPs will see you playing many weak hands, and seemingly playing them too strongly. So in game #1, you will be extracting the max/losing the min in all of those "close" situations where one player is drawing to 3 outs, and in game #2, you will be extracting a portion of the money that goes in while you're ahead (since your opponents will not be drawing near dead that often). Advantage: Game #1 by far.

[elysium]

hi mr. sklansky
it's very clear that the better of the the two games is game 2. world class players, especially when losing, tighten considerably at the right time, and loosen correctly as well. if you had the talent to garner the extra bets those times you figure to be in the lead, and minimize your losses those times you're trailing, the second game is exceedingly better because the strength of your hand is hidden.

in the first game, you have a better opportunity than you'd normally have because of the certainty that your made hand that isn't likely to improve, but is a betting hand, is in fact not a betting hand. however, when it's the other way around, without the ability of getting the world class to bet strongly when he shouldn't, and to call when he shouldn't, or to fold for that matter; without having the talent to get the world class to play incorrectly, no easy task cards face up or not, you don't have the ability to play your hand face down. you might know exactly what he's holding, but so does he you, you see.

hmmm.

anyway, no. the cards.....we spend a lot of time here pondering over card tactics, a very small part of world class hold em strategy. the world class player has at his fingertips great many tactical weapons with which to fight. that you might see one of his particular type punches coming, doesn't give away all of his others. and neither does being able to see that one type punch make it any easier to duck. with stunning frequency, you will often find having early information against the world class player causes you to fold what would have been the winner, yet the world class will often draw out against a hand that was so strong, you couldn't fold. provided that the world class player doesn't go face up with his hidden ev strategic arsenal and wide range of hold em tactics, unless the player with the early face up info about the hole cards is himself a world class player, he will still not fully maximize potential gain of having this extra revealing info, and the world class will still minimize his losses and of course maximize in the tactical areas unknown to the novice peeper. the world class doesn't have hidden hole cards, but the reason he's world class is because neither do any of his less than world class opponents have their hole cards. it takes enormous skill to sit before a world class player and not affect the strength of your hand, or how you rate his. the only difference is that now you have some idea about what goes on in the mind of a world class player, 'silly fool. don't you know you're playing me with both cards face up?'.

[ZeeJustin]

What is the average pot size in each scenario? I think this question is very crucial to figure out the answer to David's question.

In scenario 1, approximately 8 big bets would be my guess. I would also say that when you left this game, the average pot size would decrease significantly.

In scenario 2, I think the average pot size would be at least 30 big bets. 10 people see every flop. Let's assume after the flop, 5 people (gross underestimate IMO) will continue playing. Let's assume these 5 players see a showdown, and there is a bet on each street, but never a raise.
Bets into the pot:
Preflop: 5 big bets
Flop: 2.5 big bets
Turn: 5 big bets
River: 5 big bets

Already we have 17.5 big bets going into the average pot, and this is BEFORE we give players a raise button.

In David's explanation, there is no reason to assume the players will not be raising. When 10 players see every flop, someone is going to like their hand.

I would not be surprised if scenario 2 would produce an average pot size of 50 big bets or more.

[Duggers]

without even looking at your cards (assuming they didnt know you didnt look). Against pros this would probably be pretty difficult, but think about all those heads-up scenarios you will end up in. The pro has no chance if he cannot bluff you...

[cero_z]

Hi Justin,

[ QUOTE ]
UTG raises with AA. Everyone folds to you on the button. What hands (if any) do you play?


[/ QUOTE ]
Not many.
[ QUOTE ]
UTG raises with AKo. Everyone folds to you on the button. Are you gonna be playing any 2 cards that aren't dominated? I really don't think this can be profitable against a WCP.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm going to be calling or 3-betting with everything (if the blinds have folding hands, I'll just call-otherwise, isolate). 2/3 times, WCP will flop no pair. I should be able to get a lot of these pots.
[ QUOTE ]
The times you do decide to play worse hands, is your EV really that great?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's awesome! You will be giving up some pre-flop equity (though you will be able to recoup some immediately, by forcing out the blinds quite a bit), and gaining tons of post-flop equity, which is worth more the closer you get to showdown.
Game #1 is much more profitable.

[Ulysses]

the world class player has at his fingertips great many tactical weapons with which to fight.

Even a dim bulb like JV can neutralize those weapons when he knows what their cards are.

BTW, elysium, you continue to rule. You need to make a trip out to California. Make a trip to Commerce. JA Sucker and I will meet you down there and we can play w/ Gabe, mike l., andyfox, and the rest of the LA crew. Maybe Clarkmeister, Dynasty, and the Vegas crew will come down as well!!!!

[pokerwisc]

i pick the first game solely based on the fundamental theorem of poker

[Ed Miller]

Maybe Clarkmeister, Dynasty, and the Vegas crew will come down as well!!!!

Ed Miller shall now be known as "the Vegas crew." /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Clarkmeister, Dynasty, and the Vegas crew will come down as well!!!!

Ed Miller shall now be known as "the Vegas crew." /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Goddammit, dude. I already said you rule tonight in another post. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME?

[Ed Miller]

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME?

Well-played, sir.

[Paluka]

Game 1 seems like the better game by a huge margin here. Isn't this why people invented marked cards?

[Monty Cantsin]

It has to be game #1 by far.

The pot sizes in game #2 might be astronomical, but you will win them very infrequently.

Not only will you be win a huge number of pots in game #1, think of all the money you make by folding.

/mc

[elysium]

hi el diablo
thanks for the invite. i've heard some really great things about commerce. you all play a game out there that's heard around around the world. in fact, i actually had initially planned to be there right now immediately following last month's tunica session.

tunica was fairly tough. met a very good commerce pro there who played very well, along with quite a few vegas. it wasn't more for the pretty for many though i gather, but not as pertains to the commerce player. very impressive.

hope to make it out there immediately following vegas sometime hopefully within this upcoming month. still stuck here in miami coincidenting contractors, and the regular hodge podge of stupid things i never do and then try to catch up on.

well it's 5am here, tired now enough to sleep but, let me tell you something. gee do you all play well over there at commerce. how did you all learn to play like that?

[David Sklansky]

Change the 1st game so that your X-ray vision is turned off before the flop. That is the better analogy.

[SpicyF]

David, if just looking at the examples you posted, without changing the rules, which game is the most profitable in your opinion?

We really need your saying on this!

[David Sklansky]

Before giving my opinion on either the original or the revised question, I want to see much more detailed analysis from you guys.

[DeeJ]

First game surely makes tons more.

You can play along with the world class bluffs, you can fold to their made hands, you can raise when you know they will reraise with 2nd best hands. I can't believe anyone thinks the second game is better. Sure, the pots will be bigger but in the first game you win far more hands and probably, if the players are world class and aggressive (but dumb enough not to catch on /images/graemlins/confused.gif ) you will be far ahead folding when you're behind and raising when ahead, perfectly played.

[MMMMMM]

I think game #1 would be most profitable.

Let's give the second game a very high BB/hr.--say your expected value in such a super-loose game is 5BB/hr. (note: the game will also be slow. I think 5BB/hr. may be very generous here--anyone disagree? You basically have to show down the best hand to win against a large field--which is not that easy to do).

In the tight tough game, however, you will play many short-handed pots since your opponents are generally tight-aggressive. Knowing your opponents' precise holdings after the flop will sometimes allow you to gain several extra bets in just one hand. You will also be able to occasionally steal a pot. You will also be able to save bets (especially on the end) perfectly. I would think all this should be worth at least double your EV in the other game.

[MMMMMM]

"Game 1 seems like the better game by a huge margin here. Isn't this why people invented marked cards?"

This example can be taken expanded even further just for the heck of it. Say in game #1 you not only can see your opponents holecards, but you are also guaranteed to get dealt, at minimum, AQo every hand. In game #2 however you are now guaranteed that nobody will ever fold, no matter what their cards are or what the action is.

Game #1 becomes even more of a monster now, doesn't it?

[WhipMeBeatMe]

Unless I have some serious fundamental flaws with my poker thinking, I can't even see how these two scenarios are close. The first game should be vastly more profitable.

In the first game, you can play perfect poker. You will often find yourself in situations where you can manipulate your opponents on later streets to give up big portions of pot equity for a single bet or raise. This is a huge mistake that can be capitalized on. Unless you are really clueless, you will never make a negative ev play while your opponents will be making big ones.

In the second game, your opponents are making mistakes pre-flop but most will usually be correctly playing after the flop. Add to that the fact that you need a winning hand and you won't be able to capitalize on these mistakes very often. You will be playing much fewer hands in the second game as you will in the first. Also, you will be giving some of your profit back in mistakes (like drawing to a k high flush when someone has the Ace high flush). You'd never make such mistakes in the first game.

[Kevin J]

Your change takes away some profit from game #1, but not enough to get me on game #2's waiting list. Perfect play after the flop overrides all else.

Maybe what it comes down to is this... Stealing is worth more than selling. When an opponent folds a hand he shouldn't, it is usually much more profitable than having him call when he should fold. Another thing is that there will still be many more opportunities to create mistakes (of larger magnitude) in game #1 even against world class players, than game #2.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Change the 1st game so that your X-ray vision is turned off before the flop. That is the better analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I like that more. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

EDIT: Though I'd think if we played perfectly on the turn and river and turned off our XRay vision both preflop and on the flop, it would be better still, and suddenly somewhat similar the Mirage 20-40 game (without the WCP part). That would be true apples to apples. Acting perfectly on the river alone is such a huge huge benefit.

[Michael Davis]

Of course, if it is even a consideration in this theoretical problem, the first game is going to play many more hands per hour.

-Michael

[adios]

......

[Softrock]

David - perhaps I'm placing too much emphasis on wording but I appreciate you stating that you will give us "your opinion" rather than telling us you'd give us the "answer".

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's give the second game a very high BB/hr.--say your expected value in such a super-loose game is 5BB/hr. (note: the game will also be slow. I think 5BB/hr. may be very generous here--anyone disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

5 BB / HR is actually attainable in party .50/1 games where an average of 4-5 people see the flop. The scenario in example 2 is so ridiculously far beyond a party .50/1 game that the BB / HR would be far higher IMO.

[MarkD]

In the example given you will be getting far less hands per hour than party 0.5/1.0. Probably in the neighborhood of 25 hands per hour vs. Party's 50.

[junkmail3]

GAME1: This game is the much better choice, according to the fundamental theorem of poker: If you play a hand the way you would play it, had you known what your opponent had, you gain. I know what they have, I gain. I can make plays at them in places that would make me money that I may not otherwise make.

I would know the odds of my hand hitting (if I were drawing more precisely, since I don't have to count their cards in the unknowns, this helps, I can draw more, or less depending.) I also will know the odds of their draws, and that will inform my decision on wheter or not to keep going or fold. Just think of it, now I know that my opponent is getting 6:1 from the pot with a flush draw (or whatever). Now I swap roles with the odds and calculate my wins or loses over the next 100 hands to see if my betting (knowing he will call or raise) will gain me money in the long run or lose money for me in the long run. This is also dependant on how many outs he has based on the other cards I can see. (Though I understand in several cases the amount of times he misses will still make me way more money in the long run for only one more bet, but in more extreme cases where he has several more outs to beat my hand that currently beats his, I will have more odds information on whether or not to call or raise or whatever for this hand. I've not only started to make money on my correct (blind) calls, but also starting to make money when he plays his "odds."

The amount of extra information in this first situation far excedes knowing what you know in situation two.

And in the second situation, you're still going to lose money calling down river bets when you have a good hand but it's beat by their made hand, where you won't in the first situation ... maybe that is another importatnt factor. The money saved or earned on the river is amazing. Being able to always fold or raise on the river ... !!! Wow, the extra money just doesn't stop. Saving money when a hand hits him and extracting more when it doesn't, this situation has FTOP written all over it. Just the river bets alone might be enough for one to choose the first situation.

Without putting any more text down for other obscure thoughts, I'll end my anslysis.

:Analysis Concluded:

[ZeeJustin]

I'm honostly baffled as to how so many people can pick scenario 1.

In scenario 2, let's say there are 35 BB's in the average pot (respond to my earlier post about avg pot size if you think this number is too high).

What kind of equity do you think people are getting from the bets they are putting into the pot?

I don't know if this is an accurate way to analyze EV or not, but let's assign a percentage to each bet in the pot preflop. If you are getting 100% equity, that means your call is a break even proposite. I would guess many of these people are getting around 30% equity, so 70% of the money in the pot preflop is essentially dead money.

People have said that these guys are all the sudden correct to be calling postflop, so all of your equity comes from preflop mistakes. This is horribly wrong.

If the flop is 569 rainbow, do you really think it's correct to draw to your K2o even if the pot is this big? You have ten opponents. You need to hit runner-runner style to even have a chance of winning the pot, and even then, you still might lose. So what % equity is K2o getting postflop? Sounds about like 30% at most to me. Of course this number will very greatly based on pot size and opponents hands, but 30% seems generous IMO.

There would be so many bets in each pot without proper equity (IOW dead money I suppose) that winning just 3 hands an hour would make you an unbelievable hourly wage.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Before giving my opinion on either the original or the revised question, I want to see much more detailed analysis from you guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

the answer comes from balancing EV factors in two separate equations.

EV=(SUM[Xi*Yi]-r)/(X) or

EV= [SUM((Xi)#hands played * (Yi)$$won in each pot) - (r)$$rake]/(total # of hands played or 100 hands or whatever metric wrt hands you want to use)

our job is to determine which game produces a higher EV/hand metric (lets say 100 hands).

in the first game you play many hands. you lose the least when you're behind but don't gain THAT much interms of incorrect calls when you're ahead. so you play more hands X1>X2...but the average pot you win is less than in game two: Y1<Y2. so the degree and extent to which each factor affects your ev is the deciding factor. if you play 25% of your hands in game 1 (25 hands lets say) and win 5-6 bb's per hand and you win 2/3s of your hands then you win 100bbs for every 25 hands you play. in game two, pots will usually be upwards of 35 or more bbs. so playing in that game and winning 3 pots per 100 hands nets you more than the 1st game...BUT WAIT lol...the COST of being in a pot in game two is significantly more than in game 1 (no rule change for now) so that to play in that game and play a hand that loses a showdown costs maybe 6-10bb's...all in all, its a judgement call based on the parameters i'm outlining here...

you play more hands in game 1 but win/lose less. your variance is much higher in game 2 so if you're risk averse game 1 is clearly better (but we're talking strictly ev and i'll assume you'll trade a 1% increase in EV for a 50% increase in st.dev.). in game two you play very few hands (unless its limped, passive then draws play etc..) but when you win one its a monster pot and the game 1 player is still eeking out 4-8bb pots while you are still stacking chips from the 35bb monster you just won...

i can't, for the life of me, get a solid grip on WHERE the distribution of these variables lies.

maybe somebody can illuminate

PS- the above equations are only to give a viewpoint...im well aware that we dont calculate Xi*Yi to get the amount of money you win in a session so stick to the concepts please.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
without even looking at your cards (assuming they didnt know you didnt look). Against pros this would probably be pretty difficult, but think about all those heads-up scenarios you will end up in. The pro has no chance if he cannot bluff you...

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, how exactly do you know you can call if you don't know what you hold?

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

Zee,

for starters we picked the exact same # (35bbs) as an average pot in game two (see my response to DS's post requesting analysis). i still think that you have to look at the COST of not winning a pot in game 2 and having to call w/ marginal hands etc. etc...

in game 1 you do play more hands, but pots range from 4-8bbs. but the COST of playing in one of those pots usually only takes 1 bb since you can ditch on the flop if its hopeless or bluff out etc.. but you play 25% of your hands or more whereas in game 2 you play maybe 15% TOPS...if you can get in cheap in game 2 then you can play more and position is useful etc...but all in all you have to look at the parameters and make a judgement call. i cannot get my head around which is better b/c slightly altering one determinant leads to a large difference in the resulting conclusion.

-Barron

[shemp]

In Scenario 1 you have more outs. Starting at the river: you have the outs that make your hand plus the outs that don't make an opponents -- while in scenario 2 you don't have the latter, because you don't know what they are. Similar reasoning applies to flop and turn action.

I should add, the ability to avoid strong 2nd best and strong looking draws may be enough in itself

This question demonstrates how lame 2+2 is: Do you See Why?

[potato]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only will you be win a huge number of pots in game #1, think of all the money you make by folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best point made in this post so far.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
Fundamental theorum of poker (grossly paraphrased): whenever your opponent plays the same way he would if he could see your cards, you lose, and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read to see if anyone replied to this, but... In scenario #1, you never make a FTOP mistake and your opponents do. In #2, you do make such mistakes, as do your opponents. So the question becomes does playing against chimps overwhelm never making a mistake against good players, is it not obvious?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
in game 2 you play maybe 15% TOPS...

[/ QUOTE ]
You can play a lot more than 15% of your hands profitably. You have implied odds to make many hands profitable.

[cero_z]

Hi Barron,
[ QUOTE ]
uh, how exactly do you know you can call if you don't know what you hold?


[/ QUOTE ]
I generally would recommend raising in these spots. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[astroglide]

game 1 is worth more to me because it's much more fun to play. even if it's "proven" that it's less profitable, i'm sure i'd be able to play EXTREME amounts of hours with it.

[soda]

Wow, I can't believe this is such a debate. Further argumanets for scenario 1.

First of all, David stipulated that in scenario 2, the players would only call if they had some kind of draw, one card to an overpair. Now, with all 10 people seeing the flop and probably 8 more seeing the turn, that means everyone will be getting 18:1 on a flop call. Which means, even in the best of situations, say you flop a set, those people with runner, runner draws are not making large mistakes by calling. In fact, a person with a backdoor flush and backdoor straight may be correctly calling. Large pots make passive calling more correct. And these pots are going to be huge.

In Scenario #1, David stipulated that you were playing against World Class players. This is a trick. They may play excellent poker against each other, but they cannot play excellent poker against you. In fact, they will play incredibly bad poker against you. Every single decision that they make will be wrong, -EV. The fact that they are aggressive players will make their wrong decisions cost them a lot.

Again, I don't think it's close, not even if the scenario is changed so that you don't know the World Class players hole cards before the flop. I think it's testament to the power of Scenario 1 that Mr. Sklansky thought to throw this idea out there.

soda

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, they will play incredibly bad poker against you. Every single decision that they make will be wrong, -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement couldn't be more wrong. If they have aces preflop, and they raise, how is that wrong? Clearly every single decision will not be wrong. In fact, the majority of their decisions will still be correct.

In scenario 1, occassionally you can push someone off a worse hand, but the majority of the time, you will need the best hand to win (maybe not the best hand preflop, but the best hand postflop).

[andyfox]

"UTG raises with AKo. Everyone folds to you on the button. Are you gonna be playing any 2 cards that aren't dominated? I really don't think this can be profitable against a WCP."

But he's not a WCP is you know his cards. He's a chump. You now become the WCP because you're always going ot have the best of it.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
You now become the WCP because you're always going ot have the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the flop comes ace high, you aren't going to have the best of it. He's a WCP, he knows to continue playing when he hits the flop, and stop playing when he misses. Sure, you will profit against him, but not by a ridiculous amount.

[Analyst]

I think that the overall EV of this scenario is so high that I'd seriously take out a second mortgage to play $1000-2000 against any 9 players that you could name.

Getting to fold KK (or worse) pre-flop on the button vs. AA is just one of the reasons why.

[andyfox]

You might have the best of it, depending on what else comes besides the ace, what you have, and how much money is in the pot. Knowing what everybody else has will enable you to play perfect mathematical poker. Whereas they are guessing all the time (since, per David's proviso, they never catch on).

I don't think WCPs simply continue when they hit and stop when they don't. That's how I play, and I'm definitely not WC. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
He's a WCP, he knows to continue playing when he hits the flop, and stop playing when he misses. Sure, you will profit against him, but not by a ridiculous amount.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you will. Every time you pair up and he doesn't have a pair, you can earn at least one more bet from him. Every time you don't pair up (or are drawing dead), you can fold, and earn (save) multiple bets. Every time you miss but he misses too, you can put more pressure on him to fold, and earn many, many bets.

Quick example: He raises AKo, you defend the BB with 87s. Flop: Q92. How much more likely are you to win this pot now that you know he has AK? That's a 4BB swing in your favor in just one small hand.

He'll never be able to raise for a free card. He'll never be able to semi-bluff checkraise you. He'll never get paid off when you chase a flush draw and pair up on the river. He'll never get to raise you with a better kicker.

[Duggers]

As mentioned in other reply - There is no need to do any calling....

[adanthar]

Please let me know if any of the math in the following post is flaky. Also note that this post is making a huge assumption- that the world class players also happen to be tight.

Let's assume I get dealt aces against two opponents in Game 1 and we cap preflop. My equity PF is going to be something like 70%, so with ~13 SB in the pot if the blinds fold, I make around 5 and change (70% of 13 - my own 4.) If there's only one raise PF, I make 3 SB; 3 bets and I make 4.

In Game 2, if 9 people call 3 bets, I have 30% equity in the 30 SB pot, for a gain of 6 SB. (30% of 30 - my own 3.) If it's raised once, I make 4; if it's capped, 8. So, assuming an average of 3 handed play PF in Game 1, I make around one extra SB per PF raise in Game 2.

I will also make an average of a bit under 50% (some people will fold) of (probably around 6-7 SB) on every flop, and then some slightly higher percentages of slightly less BB on the turn/river. Call it 45% of 6 SB on the flop, 50% of 5 BB on the turn and 55% of 4 BB on the river.

Adding all of this up gets me in the ballpark of 7-8 big bets, plus the 1 BB/raise I get from being in a 10 handed pot over a 3 handed one. In order to make up for being in Game 1, I have to make around 8-9 BB with my aces against two people.

Folding on the flop the 1 in 5 times when a pro flops a set of jacks is great, but it won't make me back 9 bets. And I don't think I can get over 4 BB from a pro with a second best hand over the life of the hand on a regular basis.

This is a clear example, AA, where you basically know what your PF equity is within a relatively small margin. I think the answer to this is going to be very different if you hold 55, 87s, or AJo, *but*, at least with pocket pairs, there's so much to be gained from being in a guaranteed 10 handed flop that it outweighs any benefit you get from knowing your 2 WSOP opponents' hands. (Even with pocket twos, if you flop that set your 10-handed equity goes up so dramatically that not folding on the AKQ flop is probably not worth it.) In fact, to a certain degree, you don't even care what your opponents hold; if you are in an unraised pot in a game that is guaranteed to be 10 handed, you can pretty much autoraise any pair preflop for value since your opponents were dealt exactly 9 random hands.

Somebody else is gonna have to do this for T9s, though.

(Damn, I really hope my math holds up.)

[soda]

Good point.

Most decisions they make in a hand against you will be incorrect, but not all. This is especially true post flop.

I suppose playing AA preflop would be correct. But, it would probably be correct strategy for them to fold AK preflop if you were in the pot, or were in position behind them. Of course, they don't know that.

Furthermore, they will notice that you are playing like a maniac and will thus loosen up their opening standards, three betting standards against you, etc. Which, only helps you.

Also, you will only be showing down winners, ugly, disgusting hands, but winners - which will help with your bluffs. It's tough for even the best of players to call you with K high on the river when all you've shown is winners.

soda

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
But, it would probably be correct strategy for them to fold AK preflop if you were in the pot, or were in position behind them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to the fundamental theorum of poker.

[adanthar]

I'm also going to reply to myself to add one more thing:

When you hold an overpair, TPTK, or a draw in Game 1, your perfect play will often still involve calling down to the superior hand, especially when you don't know their hands preflop. If you have TT and you know that your opponent has KQ on a board of KQJ, you're doing exactly the same thing as you'd be doing without your X-ray vision- calling. If you hold aces, you'll save a BB or so when you don't autoraise the flop but you still have to call to the river due to pot size. If you hold AK, QT, JT...etc. Yeah, you save a bet on every river you miss and so on, and you can play a ton more hands, but that's partially ameliorated because in a 10 handed game we're playing any pair and in LP we almost have to play any two suited, right?

Come to think of it, the fact that I *know* all 10 people will see the flop is a HUGE piece of information.

[soda]

Please explain your reasoning.

I maintain that the correct play for them with AK would be to fold given the situation described my Mr. Sklansky.

soda

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that you could make many mistakes drawing for 8-1 or even more.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can when you're drawing dead, which they often will be. If you flop a set, you'll be getting called by guys with just one overcard. If you flop a nut flush draw, you'll get called by guys with just one overcard. This is hugely profitable for you, even though there are many cases where their calls will reinforce each other.

[SossMan]

I think game#1 would be better even if you only knew 1 of their hole cards.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in game 2 you play maybe 15% TOPS...

[/ QUOTE ]
You can play a lot more than 15% of your hands profitably. You have implied odds to make many hands profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

not if it gets all crazy in the fishpool...

-Barron

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
not if it gets all crazy in the fishpool...


[/ QUOTE ]

If utg raises, utg+1 reraises, and utg+2 caps, I'm still calling utg+3 with JTs in this game.

Edit: I don't even think that's a close decision at all.

[berya]

The 1st game would be a dream.

You can play a lot of hands which will add up to a lot of extra profit!!!

Also you don't really have to worry about going broke in this type of game.

[Gabe]

"Though I'd think if we played perfectly on the turn and river and turned off our XRay vision both preflop and on the flop, it would be better still, and suddenly somewhat similar the Mirage 20-40 game"

Is there anything you would change on the second game to make it more like, say, the Commerce 40-80 game?

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
Game 1 seems like the better game by a huge margin here. Isn't this why people invented marked cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's why they invented the Pattern Map. I find it unbeleivable that they haven't come up in this topic yet (or they have and i missed it).

[MMMMMM]

OK but how many hands are you really going to get to play in this ultra-loose game? You are still going to have to restrict your starting hand standards; you can't just play junk. Do you really want to be playing hands like 76o in this game? T7o? I don't think so in most spots. Yet in game # 1 you will be able to play a lot more hands profitably, especially in short-handed situations which will come up often.

Also, there are times when you really don't want overcards calling in game #2. Most flops you hit will not be strong enough for you to wish for unlimited chasing. Example: you play 87s and the flop comes 832 rainbow. Now you want people out rather than in.

[tolbiny]

You said that game one wouldnt be as good because "your opponents won't make many mistakes, and the pots will be small."

Your opponants will make tons of mistakes. For instance every value bet on the river against you will be a mistake. Period. Why? Because it is no longer a value bet, it is the antivalue bet. there is a 0% chance that a worse hand will call, and a 100% chance that a better hand will raise. Not only this, but you can start bluff raiseing the river at a perfect frequency so that they either have to call all of your raises or none. Either way you win.
They can also never steal the blinds against you preflop. This is a major advantage in a tight aggressive game, and you will never run into AA when you are trying to steal the blinds preflop.
You will never play dominated hands,
you will slowplay perfectly, and never give free cards to draws.
you will never show down a loser except when you get caught bluffing, and you will bluff frequently which means your bets and raises will get called, and even three bet fairly often. The pots will not be tiny becuase you are suddenly a lag. you play a ton of hands, and bet them hard. And the best part is there is no adjustment your oppononats can make against you.
game one is so much better it is sickening. your win rate should be something like 15-20 BB/hr. no way you make better than 5-8 in game two.

[tolbiny]

Come to think of it, the fact that I *know* all 10 people will see the flop is a HUGE piece of information

It sure is a huge PIECE of information. And it will always be just a piece, in game 1 you have all the information.
Try not to focus in on hands like AA- you dont get them to often. You get garbage like Q5o much more often. What would happen to your win rate if you could suddenly turn Q5o into a +ev hand?

[ZeeJustin]

ChrisD is too shy to post here, so I'll post for him:

[00:17] <ChrisD> if you're against a true WCP, you can expect that they A) will play the correct hands (according to someone in the thread) and therefore won't lose ALL that much money
[00:17] <ChrisD> but
[00:17] <ChrisD> B) will also probably figure out you're winning 100% of your showdowns
[00:17] <ChrisD> and adapt accordingly?

[adanthar]

Well, knowing that one piece of information, I can already play any pocket pair correctly regardless of what my opponents may or may not hold; I raise it preflop in an unraised pot or call/reraise otherwise as its ranking increases, end of story. I can also play any suited connector and most suited cards in general correctly (maybe not total trash like 82s) by calling/raising as warranted. I can also play big unsuited connectors correctly by limping them MP or late, and know to avoid hands like AJ entirely. Altogether, if I know for a fact all 9 people will be in, and that most won't ever fold, I can pretty much play at least a third of my hands in any position as long as I treat everything as a pure draw.

All of the drawing hands that hit then play themselves postflop. I flopped a flush/straight draw with 9 people in, you say? /images/graemlins/grin.gif How many bets am I making off this hand postflop? (Of course, you will also make bets when your 87 flops 862; you now have a pure drawing hand with 5 outs, but there are 9 people in for your draw. Cool.)

Meanwhile, in game 1, I will always know whether or not my Q5o (even A5o) is the best hand. But it usually won't be, so you'll still fold it to a raise most of the time PF. Worse, say you see T9s raise UTG. Everyone folds to you and you now reraise your slightly better hand. He calls, flops a T and you flop a 5. Congratulations; you're calling to the river due to pot odds or trying to make a world class player fold top pair in a big pot (good luck). The conclusion is that I don't think you can play total trash profitably, at least not most of the time- and you will only be playing against two or three people postflop.

It's nice that you know their hands, but when you have any sort of draw or pair, you prefer 9 in the pot. After thinking about this for a while today, it seems clear to me that pairs and suited connectors, at least, will make more in Game 2 no matter what.

So that leaves hands like AJo or KQo, which are now very nice in Game 1 and all but worthless in Game 2. I'm not sure how much my EV falls because of that, but it's probably quite a bit. Somebody else will have to do that calculation.

Overall, though, I went into this post today with the completely opposite intuitive answer that I had to abandon once I started trying to do the math. *Really* interesting.

[soda]

[ QUOTE ]
You said that game one wouldnt be as good because "your opponents won't make many mistakes, and the pots will be small."

Your opponants will make tons of mistakes. For instance every value bet on the river against you will be a mistake. Period. Why? Because it is no longer a value bet, it is the antivalue bet. there is a 0% chance that a worse hand will call, and a 100% chance that a better hand will raise. Not only this, but you can start bluff raiseing the river at a perfect frequency so that they either have to call all of your raises or none. Either way you win.
They can also never steal the blinds against you preflop. This is a major advantage in a tight aggressive game, and you will never run into AA when you are trying to steal the blinds preflop.
You will never play dominated hands,
you will slowplay perfectly, and never give free cards to draws.
you will never show down a loser except when you get caught bluffing, and you will bluff frequently which means your bets and raises will get called, and even three bet fairly often. The pots will not be tiny becuase you are suddenly a lag. you play a ton of hands, and bet them hard. And the best part is there is no adjustment your oppononats can make against you.
game one is so much better it is sickening. your win rate should be something like 15-20 BB/hr. no way you make better than 5-8 in game two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear, hear!

[ZeeJustin]

Adanthar... I love you.

[joey_qz]

To figure out how much Game 1 is worth is to effectively figure out how much an optimal player can make in a poker game. To get a feel for this, let's take one hand at a time. Take AA. If you could not see others' hands post-flop, it may be worth, say, 4 small bets on average in a game with world-class players where you yourself are world class. But since you can see your opponents' cards, you will be saving several bets when you lose, and potentially winning several extra bets when you win, on average. So instead of being worth 4 small bets, in a game where you can see all the world class players' hands post-flop, it may be worth 7 small bets. This same logic applies to all hands that were formerly playable in such a game. Additionally, hands that were formerly unplayable, will now be playable because of this large post-flop edge. I'll even argue that against a late position opener, MANY hands are playable since he is more likely to have a hand that he can't call down to the showdown with (e.g. J or Q high), and that means that you have an excellent chance of outplaying him and making him fold the better hand when he "misses."

To answer the question "How much is Game 1 worth?" we would need to quantify
a.) How many hands can we play because of our large post-flop edge
b.) How much do we make on average on these hands.

Game 2 is much closer to real games you can find in the world, so I think we may appeal to empirical data to figure out how much the game is worth. A world-class player in a tremendous game like that may make 2-3 Big Bets per hour (we're assuming live poker, e.g. 35 hands/hr).

So I think the really tough part of this problem is analyzing game #1. That is, how much does optimal play (being able to apply the fundamental theorem of poker post-flop) gain you over a break-even game where everyone is world-class, but still in the realm of mortal poker players.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
A world-class player in a tremendous game like that may make 2-3 Big Bets per hour (we're assuming live poker, e.g. 35 hands/hr).


[/ QUOTE ]

As I've stated before, I think this is an egregious underestimate. Is there any logic that was used to come up with this answer? I doubt it.

[SpicyF]

The logic might be the experience of these type of games that you lack.

[joey_qz]

Why so antagonistic in your reply?

I know of my own records, and I know personally of several other winning poker players who keep records.
I have also read books/articles written by experts such as D. Sklansky, M. Malmuth, and R. Cooke, on the subject of win-rate.
So I have a reasonable idea of what one could expect to make when dealt 35 hands an hour. I know, for instance, that you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who averages over 1.5 BB/Hr over 5000+ hands in a holdem game. So I merely extrapolated from that, and offered a suggestion of 2-3 BB/Hr for what can be described as a super hold'em game (Game 2).
Since Game 2 does not involve anything supernatural (like seeing other peoples' cards) I made a logical assumption that it is a game who's win-rate can be estimated from real-life games.

[TwoNiner]

[ QUOTE ]
However we will stipulate that you need not worry that they will "catch on", so you never have to disguise the fact you have this knowledge

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key concept IMO. Does this mean the pros don't catch on to the fact that I am raising them off of every middle pair, or simply that they aren't aware I know the cards? If these are good players who can still recognize that I am in every hand putting moves on people then they will just start calling down the majority of the time and game 2 would probably be more profitable.. If they don't realize the way I am playing then game 1 is more profitable probably.

[ike]

Your numbers seem pretty random (if I'm wrong I'd love to know how you got them) but otherwise that sounds spot on.

[Duke]

Isn't nailing Pam Anderson these days kinda bad for your health?

~D

[MMMMMM]

Try looking at it this way: would you rather play heads-up with someone who never folds, or with someone whose holecards you can see?

(of course it is not the same question but if you think about it a bit I think you may see why it is also preferable in a ring game)

[adanthar]

That isn't the question, though. If we make the assumption that the world class players play their regular tight, aggressive game, the question is if you would rather play heads up with one person whose cards you can see or with an average of 4 people who never fold.

This changes the equation so dramatically and adds so much overlay to any hand which wins more than its share against lots of random hands that you may very well be better off in the second game.

For instance, taking the example a few posts ago, as my first post in the thread demonstrates you will win *a lot* more than 7 SB with aces in a ten handed game where no one folds. If one of the monkeys you're playing with hits the raise button by accident and you three bet, you will be up 6 SB before you even see the flop, and if my postflop math is correct you are going to be up on the order of around 8 BB after the hand ends!

Incidentally, here's yet another thing I hadn't thought of: AK (and, to a lesser extent, AQ) retains a lot more value in Game 2 than you'd think, because if it hits, some people will actually fold. On a flop of A92 or K98 rainbow, you are going to narrow the field from 9 to around 4 or 5, and anyone with only an ace is virtually drawing dead. This gives you an enormous overlay with big aces that may make them worth playing/raising preflop even in Game 2. Of course, if you miss, you almost have to bail immediately.

The more I think about this scenario, the more I am convinced Game 2 is the right one to play in.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Try looking at it this way: would you rather play heads-up with someone who never folds, or with someone whose holecards you can see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not folding is much closer to optimal strategy when heads up.

[ZeeJustin]

I was talking to Ulysses about a game he played in where 80% of the people on average saw the flop, and it was capped more often than not preflop, with very heavy action on all streets. The problem is, this game isn't even close to the game David described.

Let's look at those 2 hands that are folded preflop. Clearly they aren't gonna be folding anything but the worst hands. Against 9 opponents, the average pot equity between T2o, and 63o (just picking 2 random bad hands. Things could actually get significantly worse if we dip down to 72o), is about 6%.
That means 40% of the money these 2 guys put into the pot is dead money. Preflop alone, these guys are usually putting in 4 big bets between the 2 of them, and let's estimate another 4 big bets post flop as well. So on average, they put in 8 big bets total. 40% of that is 3.2 big bets (the amount that's "dead money). Let's say you win just 3 hands an hour at this table. I have just shown the difference between 80% and 100% of the people seeing the flop (and playing badly throughout) will cost you 10 big bets per hour.

This is why no one here is correct when they have claimed to play in games this extreme and averaged only 1-3 BB/hr. In fact, they are way way off, or absolutely attrocious at poker.

[MMMMMM]

I know it's not the ame question, but think it has some relevance.

Consider that in the second game, even though you get a big overlay when you win, you just aren't going to win very many hands. In the first game you will play lots more hands and have a bigger edge on hands you do play.

[andyfox]

You're expecting somebody on this forum to know the answer to that question? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

FWIW, many years ago I lived next door to Tommy Lee. One day one of his musician friends is knocking on his apartment door at around 2 in the afternoon. No answer. He starts knocking and yelling. I come out to see what's going on. He asks me if Tommy's home. I say I'm not sure, but I think he is. The guy yells, "C'mon, Tommy, open the door, you can't f*ck all day."

Having lived next door to Tommy, I can tell you, his friend was mistaken.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider that in the second game, even though you get a big overlay when you win, you just aren't going to win very many hands. In the first game you will play lots more hands and have a bigger edge on hands you do play.

[/ QUOTE ]In the second game, as ZeeJustin just pointed out, it's not a 'big' overlay. The combined overlay from an average of about 5 of these 9 people is going to be on the magnitude of 10-15 big bets per pot. It's a goddamn huge overlay.

In the first game, you still can't play trash (and if you do, half the time you will find yourself in the 'correct' position of calling down thanks to pot odds; reverse implied odds will kill you), you won't play dominated hands and you will be giving up PF equity with suited connectors by default (yes, you'll make up all of that postflop and then some, but you're still losing money whenever you call AK with 76 3 handed). You'll also very often play exactly the same way with or without your magic goggles, because a draw is a draw, and except for the river, your opponents will frequently be correct to, say, call *their* draws. Overall, I don't think you're going to be playing more than half the deck, and the real value of this power is going to be knowing when to fold on the flop, NOT when to call the turn or raise the river.

Meanwhile, if I play Game 2, I'm not only playing any pair and most suited for at least 1/3 of the deck, I can raise flush and straight draws for value on the turn.

The one flaw in what I'm arguing is that there's a subset of hands that you play 3 handed that you can't play 10 handed, eg. KQo, and they will bring in the money. But I am reasonably sure that the amount of dead money on the table when you do play (and you will play an awful lot of hands 10 handed) will justify that.

[Kevin J]

Zee-

I think you are WAY overestimating EV against a bunch of loose players. Yes, it will be much higher than usual, but it still won't be as high as you seem to be suggesting. You will also suffer from severe downswings due to variance and not always being able to play correctly in such huge pots against so many opponents in game 1. Even against loose players, correct decisions often become difficult in such large pots against many players (although, in the end, I agree you will come out way on top). I also strongly disagree that you should be playing almost any two in such a game (am I misunderstanding you?). Contrast this to being able to play tons of hands flawlessly EVERY time after the flop in game 2. The way I see it, it's not even close. I guess I'll see if I'm wrong.

[ZeeJustin]

I provided a mathematical explanation. Can you show me where a LARGE (yes, there are small ones, but in both directions) discrepency is? I think it makes absolutely no sense to respond to a mathematical explanation by saying "your answer is too big".

[Ulysses]

Andy,

Of all the people here who were going to bust out a story about Tommy Lee f'in all day long, I wouldn't have put you at the top of the list. Nice work.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are WAY overestimating EV against a bunch of loose players.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was what I said to ZJ as well. If someone cared to quantify this, they could take a few hands and run sims to see how they fare v. 9 random hands. Actually, I guess it would be relatively easy to sim game 2 given the constraints David laid out.

Get on it, ZJ!

[scalafab]

I think this is a no brainer . I think without going to odds and overanalizing I'll take the X ray any day any time over any other game even without preflop X ray.

Againnst that time,if ever that time come

[MMMMMM]

You can literally sit for HOURS in a good ring game and never get dealt a hand that would have won even if you had played every hand to the river. You won't be winning as many hands as you might think in the second game.

On the other hand, playing short-handed with marked cards, you will RAPE the opposition.

[J.A.Sucker]

You are exactly correct, Kevin. It's not even close. With position, I'd play almost EVERY HAND with x-ray vision. A WCP is nothing without his bag of tricks, value-bets, reads, etc, all of which you take away from him. Now, he's just a tight, chip-spewing ninny. You will own him. Plus, you'll get many hands per hour. You will also win by pot manipulation techniques, setting up steals and "crying calls" alike. This is huge, not to mention all those river folds you'll make and river bets/checkraises that you could also make.

In the other game, you won't be able to play nearly as many hands. Actually your edge per hand won't really be that much more (yes, you read that right), because of the Sklanksy's "Horse Race Concept" and is nowhere near what ZeeJustin thinks. Plus, the game will be half as fast. Sorry, no contest. Score this one a 8th round TKO.

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the people here who were going to bust out a story about Tommy Lee f'in all day long, I wouldn't have put you at the top of the list. Nice work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your mom was busy today, and unavailable for comment.

OLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[J.A.Sucker]

I basically did this long ago in my example to Zee, where people will be getting like 9-1 on the TURN to take one off. Not too many mistakes you can make, here. Of course, playing too loose preflop costs money, but if the cost is only one or two bets, this is really only a couple of bucks per player, at most.

In the other game, you'll be making your opponnets make mistakes 1 BB at a time (either by saving bets or making them yourself). This doesn't even get into bluffing him out of pots.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, no contest. Score this one a 8th round TKO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agee completely. I wanna tell Zee to throw in the towel- he is like Apollo vs Drago here.

[Kevin J]

What if we reduced this problem to a simple heads-up match? You have your choice of opponents who you could play just 10 hours with. Player 'A', who is a total fish and considers an overcard to the flop a monster draw, or player 'B', a world class pro, who plays his cards face up after the flop. Are there actually people here who would choose to sit down with the fish?

The way I see it, the world class pro presents just one problem... That is, he will eventually figure out that for whatever the reason you are reading him with pinpoint accuracy. Being world class, he will now start employing "game theory" to stop you from making a profit on your bluffs. But that's Ok, because you will eventually realize this and counter with game theory yourself when deciding whether or not to bluff. Every other 3rd, 4th, and 5th street decision you will make flawlessly. Since when is flawless play (according to poker theory), anything less than monumental?

I've got over 6000 live hours in this game and STILL find myself in a quandry once in a while after raising big cards pre-flop and getting heads up with a fish. I bet the flop and he calls. It's somtimes difficult to know what to do on the turn. My ace-high might be the best hand and if so, I should probably bet. But if he's got some puny pair, then I should probably check if he'll give me the free card, but call when I bet. I'll beat this guy eventually, but it might take some time. It's gonna take some time because I cannot play as close to perfect poker theory as I could against the world class pro who exposes his cards. It's why excellent hand readers out-perform merely good players by a wide margin. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'd ask the fish for a rain-check, and sit down with the pro who exposes his cards in a heart beat. IMO-

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you win just 3 hands an hour at this table.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this right here, negates your computations. You won't average winning 3 hands per hour in a game where 9 other players are schooling to beat you. Unless of course, you play just as badly as they do.

I see what you're saying, but I still think you're taking too much liberty in your assumptions. That's not math, just my opinion. I suck at math and have only my sense or feel to rely on. If I'm wrong and your math is undisputable, I apologize.

[J.A.Sucker]

I believe Meg Ryan said it best, "YES! YES!! YES!!!!!!!!!"

A full game is slightly different, of course, but the logic is right.

[Cosimo]

Start with a very simple example:

A) Heads-up against a WCP. Both players must call preflop, with no raises allowed. Post-flop play proceeds as normal, but you can see his hole cards and he will never guess that you can. (Will the fact that the opponent wins 0% of his bluffs eventually induce him to give up bluffing? Won't a WCP adapt his play to the opponent? Let's say no for now--he forgets about the previous hand.)

B) Heads-up against someone who never folds. Both players must call preflop, with no raises allowed. Opponent never bets or raises post-flop.

In game B, one could run a simple sim to see which hands to bet on each post-flop round. You'll never hit a 24BB pot, but you'll never be forced to put money in to keep drawing. You'll win exactly 50% of the hands. You will only put in money when you have the theoretical best of it. This is a very easy game to beat, for maybe about 1 BB per hand.

In game A, you're going to have to use your judgement to decide if you'll get more from a bet or a check-raise, and if he'll check the turn if you raise him on the flop. You'll win less than 50% of the hands, because you'll fold on the flop a few times when you are too far behind. On the plus side, you'll never bet a strong hand that is actually a loser.

This is the important point: in both games, you know if you are ahead or not. In game A, you know it on a hand-by-hand basis; in game B, you'll know what to do to maximize your return over a thousand hands.

It's better to bet when you know you're ahead than when you are likely to be ahead. You bet 50% of the time in both games, but you'll win more of those bets when you know you're ahead. Let me repeat: you are more likely to win bets when you have a better hand. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Furthermore, game A gives you a chance to collect bluffs and to more successfully make your own bluffs. The chance to get extra money in via raises is also a great benefit.

Game A wins.

Now, what happens when you have to play preflop? What if there's more than two people in the game? What if the WCP adapts to your play?

[tolbiny]

the largest discrepancy that i see is that you will not win 3 pots per hour. In a game where every one sees the flop for multiple bets you will be seeing at best 25 hands per hour. 3 pots per hour is 12% of those hands won. This is unrealistic because you are the tightest person at the table, so there is no way that you are winning more than the 10% you would win if all hands were delt out to the river. I would expect that you would win 1.5 pots an hour, but that is just a guestimate.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Which game is worth more? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

The original question does not even specify whether he is interested in hourly rate, or winrate / hand.

A lot of you are bringing up the point that in scenario 2, there will be fewer hands dealt as each hand takes longer. I sincerely doubt this has anything to do with the point David was trying to make.

If we were to analyze win rate in terms of big bets / 100 hands (the stat most people with pokertracker are starting to use), would you guys switch sides all the sudden?

As stated before, I really do not think # of hands / hr has anything to do with David's point.

[ZeeJustin]

I believe 3 people now have rephrased the question so that it is heads up. This is a very innacurate analogy for several reasons.

1) Never folding is a lot closer to optimal strategy when heads up.

2) Putting opponents on hands is a lot harder heads up.(note that in scenario 1, if utg raises, and utg+1 3 bets, you aren't saving bets when their cards are revealed as good enough to warrant a fold. Even if you couldn't see their pocket kings and AQs, you would still be folding almost every hand on the button. Heads up, obvious auto-fold scenarios rarely arise.)

3. The way the question is phrased by at least 1 person, the pots will be much bigger in HU scenario 1, because raising and betting is still allowed.

Ugh, there was one other important reason that I really can't remember. Anyone want to help me out? It's not anything particularly complicated.

[ZeeJustin]

Many people have said that the fact that your opponents are world class players is merely extraneous information.

Any half-way decent poker player should understand that this is not true by any stretch of the imagination.

Player x has AJo utg. He's a WCP, so he's not going to raise. He's going to fold. If he were to raise, you would increase your profits in this game. This is just one extremely basic example of how being up against mediocre players would change the question tremendously.

Also, people have assumed throughout this thread that WCP = being extremely aggressive. This is not necessarily true. A WCP knows when to be aggressive, and when to be passive. If you're consistantly showing down winners, the players will become more passive against you. (Note that I mentioned nothing about the opponents catching on to the fact that their cards were marked.)

I was doing something I haven't done in a while, but has been tremendously valuable to my poker game. I sat alone at a table, and dealt out cards for 10 players. When I do this, I imagine there's a certain scenario, and see how the hands would play out. Of course, I have to try to pretend like I am 10 seperate players, each with their appropriate amount of knowledge (i.e cannot see the other cards, cannot accurately predict check raises, etc.) When I dealt the cards out this time, I pretended the player on the button could see everyone elses cards. Most of my predictions were confirmed.

At first, I tried playing any 2 cards. This wasn't all that profitable. It seemed like every extra pot I won that I wouldn't have won otherwise was against AK-AJ. Whenever I called or reraised raises from an overpair, I had to give up my hand on the flop. Occassionally I was drawing fairly live until the river, but I don't believe I won one pot against an overpair (small sample size, I know). From this "simulation", I really am quite sure that many of you are overestimating the amount of hands you can play in this scenario. Oh yeah, the large majority of the hands the player on the button did win, he was able to extract one extra bet per hand from the opponent. Obviously this is a great advantage and all, but I still really don't think it compares to scenario 2.

I probably sound crazy for simulating it like this, but I highly encourage people to try it out, and see how they think the game plays out for them. It's a great theoretical tool.

[ZeeJustin]

I'm not gonna lie, I didn't bring this up earlier, because my knowledge of Morton's theorem is shady at best. If I say something incorrect I apolagize, but it is my understanding that it directly applies to this scenario, and is actually very important.

A lot of players have mentioned that the pots are so big, that it will always be correct for someone to draw to a gut shot, and often correct to draw to two-pair, etc.

The thing is, you have complete knowledge of how bad your opponents are. You aren't going to be playing hands like A9o hoping to make a pair. You are going to be playing hands like Axs. If you are playing Axs, it doesn't matter that Joe is getting correct odds to draw to his gutshot. You are drawing to the nuts, so all the money Joe puts into the pot has absolutely no equity when you hit your hand (and when you don't hit your hand, you have no equity, so you don't care if he profits or not). It is the other players that are suffering from his call, not you.

This concept also applies to people drawing to their 2 pair against your sets, and many other scenarios.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe 3 people now have rephrased the question so that it is heads up. This is a very innacurate analogy for several reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rephrased it so that it was heads up so that I could tackle a simple problem, to understand the principles. I started assuming preflop action and "normal play" from a total fish, but that complicated things. I then reached an epiphany about betting when you know you are ahead vs. betting when you are likely to be ahead. I haven't been playing seriously very long--I'm not here to give the answers to other people, I'm here to work out the answers for myself, so that I understand what's going on. So sure, maybe I haven't answered the question that was asked, but I think I learned something about the game a result of David's questions. I hope (some) others learned from my post.

I have not yet revisted this thread to consider what happens when the problem gets more complicated; too late! Need sleep!

[MMMMMM]

It's a different question but it still illustrates a point: that you gain far more by knowing your opponent's cards than by his playing exceedingly loosely.

That things change when going to a full game is true, but remember you just aren't going to win very many big pots in that full game. Heck you aren't even going to be playing most hands in that game. Heads-up, however, you will be playing and taking advantage nearly every hand. So in the WCP game which will play much more like heads-up than like a loose ring game, you will get to play a very high percentage of hands and will have a very large edge on those hands.

[MMMMMM]

In the marked cards scenario, you aren't going to be playing junk utg (at least I wouldn't). You would be most inclined to lower your starting standards after a good number of people had passed. Thus your chances of being against an overpair would be minimized. Also you would take full advantage of blind defense and steal situations which would come up frequently in this game.

As for your hand-dealt simulation and practice thinking what you would do in each spot, I agree it sounds like a worthwhile exercise.

[Justin A]

Game 1: The earn rate at this game would be astronomical. Your stack would almost never go down, and the WCP's would have absolutely no weapons to use against you. Name one tactic they employ that wouldn't be completely taken away by the fact that you know what their cards are. Semi-bluff raise? ALWAYS incorrect against you. You simply reraise when you have the best of it, and since their raise has zero folding equity, and you'll reraise every time, it becomes a HUGE mistake. How about trying to mix up their play to throw you off? Can't happen. If they bet and they're ahead, you fold. If they bet and you're ahead, you raise(unless you're slowplaying).

Let me say it again. Because you always know what they hold, WCP's will make a lot of mistakes against you, and they will make some mistakes that are much more -EV than any play made in game 2(See my semi-bluff example).

So now you say, "They'll notice you only show down winners, and will adjust accordingly." Are you kidding? This creates a great situation for bluffing. And because they're WCP's, they'll be more likely to lay down a decent hand based on the fact that you've only shown down winners.

You will never lose a big pot when you have a strong hand that is second best. In fact, you will probably lose only one BB in such a pot, where you might have lost many more. Imagine you flop your set of sixes, but notice that someone else flopped their set of nines. You save tons of bets here. You'll never play a dominated hand, you'll never be drawing dead, you'll never make a bad value bet. You'll never be outkicked when you stay in. You'll fold AK on a flop of AQ6 when you see your opponent has AQ. You'll never pay anyone off, unless you're drawing, in which case you'll never make a mistake. You'll never make a mistake. The WCP's will make huge mistakes all the time against you.

Someone mentioned this before, but it would be impossible for a WCP to make a value bet against you.


In game 2, you're winning a pot once in a blue moon. You're opponents will make many mistakes, but they will not be as costly as a WCP value bet or semi-bluff in game 1. You would be able to make decent money, but nowhere near what you'd make in game 1. Hands per hour is also important, because when the question is, "which game is worth more?" hourly rate becomes a consideration. Game 1 is also better in this respect.

I hope I've made my point, I find it odd that there's even been such a large discussion over the matter.

Respectfully,
Justin A

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the key concept IMO. Does this mean the pros don't catch on to the fact that I am raising them off of every middle pair, or simply that they aren't aware I know the cards? If these are good players who can still recognize that I am in every hand putting moves on people then they will just start calling down the majority of the time and game 2 would probably be more profitable.. If they don't realize the way I am playing then game 1 is more profitable probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily in game 1 you have the ability to shift gears, so when they start calling you down, you only show them winners, and you'll get more action on your winners. I think the excersise assumes the player with the information isn't a complete fish. Game 1 is much better even assuming the pros will adjust to the way you're playing, as long as they don't know that you know their cards.

Justin A

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, people have assumed throughout this thread that WCP = being extremely aggressive. This is not necessarily true. A WCP knows when to be aggressive, and when to be passive. If you're consistantly showing down winners, the players will become more passive against you. (Note that I mentioned nothing about the opponents catching on to the fact that their cards were marked.)


[/ QUOTE ]
I am pretty sure when David said "they don't catch on to the fact that their cards are marked" he also meant they don't adjust because you are showing down a lot of winners. I think it was intended to be a pure hypothetical, they aren't adjusting. Act like everyone forgets what just happened after every hand.

[tolbiny]

Which is more likely-
WCP raises T9s UTG, folded to you in the BB with Q6o and you three bet.
flop comes T 5 2. With 6 sbs in the pot you are getting 7-1 to call his bet, so you call. The turn brings no help to you, you are getting 5-1 on his bet so you fold. You lose 4 sbs.
Or
WCP raises T9s UTG, folded to you in the BB with Q6o and you three bet.
flop comes J,6,4 with no flush draw for him. You bet. He either folds, or raises, or calls trying to push you off on the turn. You either profit 3 sbs, 5 sbs or 7 sbs when he has to lay down to your 3 bet.
The second scenario is much more likely- there are more bad flops for you opponent than there are good flops. You will win basically 3 sbs out of him every time he misses. he cant make a move on you because you can three bet. Is he going to call down with T high? Even if he does your Q high wins. Garbage hands make up the majority of hands in poker.

I believe that your math is ignoring all of the bets you have to put in preflop and miss totally. All of the times that you bet your draws and miss. When you value bet a draw you only win a fraction of the bets that are put in the pot. Non nut draws win even less.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is more likely?

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither. Both are equally likely. And, over time, that equates to a win rate of about 5%-10% multiplied by the amount of extra bets you win vs. the payoffs you don't make. That second number is substantial- a couple of BB, at least- but not overwhelming, so your EV on trash *that you can play* (you're obviously not playing it with 3 people in the hand) will be a fraction of a BB each hand. I also ignored the fact that after you start showing down that many winners, nobody will be raising T9s anymore.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that your math is ignoring all of the bets you have to put in preflop and miss totally. All of the times that you bet your draws and miss. When you value bet a draw you only win a fraction of the bets that are put in the pot. Non nut draws win even less.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I did take them into account. The biggest example of missing heads up is when your overpair runs into his set. That's huge the 1 in 5 times it happens and saves you in the neighborhood of 5 BB if you normally call down, but it only comes out to be 1 BB/rare situation. You will also save 1 BB on every unfavorable river, make 1 BB on favorable ones (until they stop betting into you), and...that's about it. You'll play your draws as before, your TPTK as before and everything else pretty much straightforwardly. Okay, once in a while you will pick off a bluff with your bottom pair, until they stop bluffing.

Meanwhile, a flush draw in a 10 way pot is worth in the neighborhood of 25% (board pairing, higher flushes etc.) It'll make 1.5/3 BB on a raised/capped flop; if no one folds and you *don't* hit, it'll make another 2/4 BB on a raised/capped turn; and another 4-6 BB if you hit on the river. Every time you hit on the turn, your profit is somewhere in the neighborhood of 'astronomical'. Subtract a quarter of a BB from these numbers for every straight draw and somewhere around that for every AK on a K42 board; add a bazillion for every set/trips and other monsters.

I am not at all sure about KQo, but I'm reasonably certain that my math re: suited cards and pairs stands up and they are unquestionably more valuable in Game 2. Will trash hands and big cards you'd fold make up for that in Game 1? I honestly don't think so at this point. (If you change the problem to 'not seeing cards before the flop', it's not even close.)

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone mentioned this before, but it would be impossible for a WCP to make a value bet against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about when they flop a huge hand, and you flop a draw to a better hand?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was intended to be a pure hypothetical, they aren't adjusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If this were true, you could completely ignore the marked card aspect (not that you would), and start playing loose and aggressively. It's hard to profit against a loose aggressive player without adjusting properly. You could also probably raise profitably every time you are utg or utg+1. In your game, they will not catch on to anything, and they can only play back at you with very strong hands (I'm assuming you start this game with the image of a WCP).

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll never make a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're implying that perfect play in scenario 1 is easy, you are certainly incorrect. Preflop play would probably be the hardest. Also, knowing when to raise the turn vs the flop could be tough. For the many players out there that suck at math, knowing when to draw would also be very tough.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
WCP raises T9s UTG,

[/ QUOTE ]

WCP and LAG are two different acronyms. We are talking about World Class Players. They will not be raising T9s unless the game is overly tight, or they are not getting enough action. You will be macing the game plenty loose, and giving them plenty of action. They will NOT be raising T9s utg.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
WCP's will make a lot of mistakes against you

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are overestimating both the number and the severity of mistakes in game 1.

[ QUOTE ]
and they will make some mistakes that are much more -EV than any play made in game 2

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is grossly incorrect. In game 2, do you realize how many people will be drawing dead on every single turn? If you only count absolutely 100% dead money that has 0 equity, that money alone would be greater than the average pot size in game 1.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone mentioned this before, but it would be impossible for a WCP to make a value bet against you.




[/ QUOTE ]


What about when they flop a huge hand, and you flop a draw to a better hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't specify, but I meant value bet on the river. However, when they flop a big hand, and you flop a draw to a better hand, it's not too difficult to figure out exactly how many outs you have since you know his cards, and you can make a +EV play.

Justin A

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're implying that perfect play in scenario 1 is easy, you are certainly incorrect. Preflop play would probably be the hardest. Also, knowing when to raise the turn vs the flop could be tough. For the many players out there that suck at math, knowing when to draw would also be very tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're argument is running thin. Now you're saying game 2 is better based on the fact that you might suck at math while playing game 1, and make mistakes. If you're bad enough to make mistakes in game 1 with perfect information, then you probably not gonna fair too well in game two.

Preflop play tough? Lets say you're UTG and look behind you and see that everyone has trash hands, including the blinds. You throw in a raise you're likely to win it right there. Lets say you have AQ, and you look behind you to see an AK, easy muck. In position your play is incredibly simple. Don't play dominated hands, and no matter what you play you'll have the best of it throughout the hand.

Knowing when to raise the flop or turn? This can be a tough decision, but not if you know their cards. You can see the strength of their hand, and get a good idea of what your best play is. ZJ, you seem to be assuming that the player in game 1 is a total fish who, "sucks at math," while the player in game 2 makes all his decisions perfectly all the time.

Justin A

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are overestimating both the number and the severity of mistakes in game 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I explained my reasoning for this. All of their normal tactical tools will be rendered worthless, and will become big mistakes. Anytime they try for a check-raise with the best hand it will be a mistake, you can just check behind. Anytime they raise for a free card, it will be a huge mistake, costing them two extra flop bets when you include your raise, and they'll still have to pay off the turn. Need I go on? Almost every play they make against you will be a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and they will make some mistakes that are much more -EV than any play made in game 2

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is grossly incorrect. In game 2, do you realize how many people will be drawing dead on every single turn? If you only count absolutely 100% dead money that has 0 equity, that money alone would be greater than the average pot size in game 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about all the times you'll be drawing dead, or more likely, to very few outs. All the times you'll have AK, flop is K63, and that guy with K6 drags it down. You will make mistakes in game 2 that you'd never make in game 1. You'll be drawing very thin many times, and even when you've got the best hand, there are so many players in every hand that drawing to their bottom pair will be correct. They will be correct in drawing to two overcards. The will not be correct in the case of one overcard, but with such a large pot it won't be that bad.

With all these players in every hand, there's plenty of situations where you'd be putting in your dead money, which you would never do in game 1.

Justin A

[Duggers]

Also, consider all the heads up scenarios you will be in that you literally are toying with WCP. You will win almost everytime neither of you have a hand - which is a lot of the time. You will still need to put some thought about the best way to get the money in each scenario, but you will never be bullied off the best hand in a HU situation with a scary board (as you normally would quite a bit by a WCP). With a table full of WCPs I would imagine you would be heads up in a huge amount of pots....

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you're saying game 2 is better based on the fact that you might suck at math while playing game 1

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not put words in my mouth. I didn't even imply this. I'm simply counterring your argument with this.

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop play tough?

[/ QUOTE ]
UTG raises with AKo. You have T8s on the button. I gaurentee you some people here will say raise, some will say fold, and others will say call. I honostly have no clue which is best.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't play dominated hands, and no matter what you play you'll have the best of it throughout the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are saying (and I don't disagree) that you can loosen up in scenario 1 considerably. This means playing worse hands than the opener. If you do this consistantly, you will NOT have the best of it throughout the hand. You will have the worst of it far more often than you'd expect.

[ QUOTE ]
ZJ, you seem to be assuming that the player in game 1 is a total fish who, "sucks at math," while the player in game 2 makes all his decisions perfectly all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said playing perfectly in scenario 2 is easy. I think it would be much harder than playing perfectly in scenario 1. That being said, I still think people are vastly overestimating the ease of playing perfectly in scenario 1.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost every play they make against you will be a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is incorrect. They will be playing in a straightforward manner more often than not. They will be betting their good hands, and folding their bad hands. The majority of the time, their decisions will be correct.

[ QUOTE ]
All the times you'll have AK, flop is K63, and that guy with K6 drags it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your best value in scenario 2 clearly does not come from hands like AKo.

[ QUOTE ]
You will make mistakes in game 2 that you'd never make in game 1. You'll be drawing very thin many times, and even when you've got the best hand, there are so many players in every hand that drawing to their bottom pair will be correct. They will be correct in drawing to two overcards. The will not be correct in the case of one overcard, but with such a large pot it won't be that bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument contradicts itself. It's correct for others to draw to their hands, but not for you to?

Also, see my post on Morton's Theorem RE why you actually WANT them to be drawing correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
With all these players in every hand, there's plenty of situations where you'd be putting in your dead money, which you would never do in game 1.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I rarely find that I am drawing completely dead in any form of limit holdem. Occassionally, someone will have a bigger flush draw than me, but it's a rare occasion. Your opponents on the other hand will be drawing dead very very very often. If they have as little as an overcard, they will be drawing, even if you are representing the nut flush.

[Duggers]

I disagree with you assesement of WCPs mistakes. While they would not be making plays that people would call mistakes normally (i.e. since they dont know their opponents cards) they will constntly make misakes as described by the fundamental theorum.

For example, you end up in a steal position vs, blinds. You see flop heads up vs BB. You have 8-10s and BB has K-Jo. You don't mind trying the steal in this situation even though you don't think BB will fold pre flop since you have HUGE advantage HU.

Now flop comes 8,10,J rainbow. You dont think the WCP is going to make a mistake here? I would imagine not only would he bet into you, he most likley will three bet your raise. Even when you pop him again, isnt he gonna call you all the way down particularly is rags come). In this scenario he burns 3BB - all errors.

The alternative in the same scenario is when cards comes K,8,2 (3,4). Normally you are probably at least calling down with your 8 in a HU situation (maybe trying to make a play and get away frrom it if you dont like his reaction). Now you can just fold and lose no bets one flop hits.

These situation will arise all the time, you make 3BB in one and save at least 2.5 in the other - big bux.....

[ZeeJustin]

What???
In the KJ vs T8s example, how does knowing his cards help? If you didn't know his cards, wouldn't you play T8s almost exactly the same way? You have two pair against a call in the blinds. You have the best hand the large majority of the time.

In the second scenario, your decision between calling him to the river, and folding on the flop is close (even if you know that he has you beat). This means that calling and folding have very similar equity, and therefore, your advantage from seeing his cards isn't all that big.

As I've said before, your biggest advantage by far in scenario 1 is the river, but you aren't going to be seeing many rivers, and the large majority of the time, when you do see the river, you will be making 1 additional big bet (a huge advantage of course, but not even close to enough to beat out scenario 2).

[Duggers]

The KJ example was not meant to show how our Hero would play - it jsut shows that the WCP will make big mistakes according the the fundamental theorum of poker. If he knew your cards he would lay it down on the flop, but he doesnt so HE makes big mistakes. You seem to be suggesting that the WCP will not make many mistakes - I think this is way off (please note the difference in the meaning of the word mistake when refered to normally and when refered to in regard to the FToP. Clearly none of us would suggest a player lay down the KJ if we were presented with this hand from a normal game. However, if you knew your opponent had 8-10, then you were making a mistake - this scenario is as described by FToP).

The second scenario I dont really see as a close play. In a normal game I dont see many people laying down the middle pair HU. Yet clearly it is a fold if you know you are up against a K (only 5 bets in pot for you to call on flop with 5 outs).

Using the term "mistake" with regard to the FToP I think it is obvious that the pros make "mistakes" all the time.....our Hero plays so well it is rediculous - even if he is not so great at math. There are so many opportunities to take pots down that the close drawing opportunites can be folded with much damage.

In fact, if you had a small BR in this game there is no reason not to use variance reducing plays since the win rate will be so high.

[Justin A]

Well said.

Justin A

[ZeeJustin]

Usually when you post questions like this, there's a morale to the confusion. What's your take on this question?

[Cosimo]

I don't think we'll get an answer until the new thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=797272&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#797272) has run its course.

[Kevin J]

Whatever else he has in mind, I believe it's also an example of just how important hand reading skills are. After you've got poker theory down, hand reading is the single most important factor that separates a good player from an expert. So this thread goes to show that even an expert's skills are greatly diminished against an excellent hand reader. This is my biggest disagreement with you and why I think you are SOOOOO wrong about this! IMO-

[ThePopinjay]

So what do you think David? Which is more profitable in the original w/o changing anything, and which is more profitable in the revised?

We really need you on this!

[George Rice]

I'll take a stab at it.

The first game in which you see the hole cards is worth much more. The reason is that there are many more situations where you gain from this knowledge. One example is when there is a raise pre-flop, you'll know if it's worth staying with your hand. If you have QQ and are raised by a middle position player you would typically re-raise. But if your opponent had AA or KK you can now muck and save two bets right there. You could three bet with 99 vs. 88, AQ vs. AJ and so on. You can fold with a pair in a multiway pot if one of your cards were out, or fold 76s in the same situation for the same reason, There are many such situations in which you would gain pre-flop.

On the flop (which will also apply in the revised question where you see the cards only after the flop) you will see for certain whether you should continue with flush draws (is someone on a higher draw or how many of your flush cards are already out in other's hands?), straight draws (especially if there's a two-flush on the flop); with overpairs or top pairs (even overcards) with a pair on the flop; raise or check-raise with top pair up front because you know if someone will bet (or raise) for you; fold with a good hand because you've been out-flopped; the list goes on and on. Most of your ev gain will probably be on the flop, and you will gain even more ev on the flop in the revised question (although probably not as much as you lose by not seeing the cards pre-flop), because you will see more flops.

On the turn and river many opportunities will occur to get in extra bets, save bets, bluff and catch bluffs and so on. A lot of ev will be gained here too.

Finally, the swings will be much lower in the first game, which is almost a joke to point out, as it will be rare to have a losing session--just play longer. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Perhaps the biggest gain will be from the fact that you can play many more hands if the first game.

In the second game you will certainly gain from the way they play. You will have some very big wins when things are going your way because of all the extra bets in there. But you will also lose more often with all those players drawing out on you with greater frequency than normal. And you will not get to play in as many hands as in the first game.

My personal experience is that I prefer predictable games because I win with greater frequency. This is expecially important because I don't have a huge bankroll. My biggest wins have been in the loose games, but also my biggest losing streaks. In predictable games, winning 9 out of 10 sessions is not as uncommon as some might think. Losing 9 out of 10 is almost impossible.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WCP raises T9s UTG,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WCP and LAG are two different acronyms. We are talking about World Class Players. They will not be raising T9s unless the game is overly tight, or they are not getting enough action. You will be macing the game plenty loose, and giving them plenty of action. They will NOT be raising T9s utg.

[/ QUOTE ]

The T9s hand was an example that adanthar brought up a post or two ago.

[tolbiny]

Neither. Both are equally likely.

My mistake, i wrote that incorrectly. What i was trying to get at is the fact that there are more flops that dont help your opponents than do. There fore you should win more than 90% of these hands, excluding only the ones that he decides to make a move on the turn, but the turn ends up helping him.

until they stop betting into you
Why do they ever stop betting into you? Because you are showing winners? Enough of your winners are going to be Q5o, or A4o that they will lable you as a lag and they will never stop betting into you as long as they dont figure out that you know their cards. WCP's are not going to become passive just beccause you are on a "lucky" streak. They will try to attack what they percieve as your weakness- the fact that you bet marginal hands, and play to many hands preflop and you bluff alot. All these things combined will garuntee that you gat tons of action from these players- no matter how amny winners you show down.

[Ulysses]

David,

You said you'd chime in once a few people provided some analyis. Enough? Please provide your thoughts - there's a big wager riding on this one!

[1800GAMBLER]

Re: Playing tight in the marked card game, i remember Sklansky saying in top that when you are playing some crazy lowball game against someone who only plays A23 you should play looser as you know his hand, you know when he pairs, when he gets a high card. In the marked card game, i'd be playing very loose.

The fact that poker is a game of incomplete information is the reason you have variance (factors like, your hand, the flop, do add to variance) but the other persons hand is the big factor, you could get KK UTG and fold it, you could raise x,x in late, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
UTG raises with AKo. Everyone folds to you on the button. Are you gonna be playing any 2 cards that aren't dominated? I really don't think this can be profitable against a WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! I know when he pairs, i know when he misses, i know when he'll fold it and when he'll call with it. I know how to get paid off.

[ QUOTE ]
Not according to the fundamental theorum of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a hand that came up in Dublin. I had 33 on the button and open raise the blinds. Flop: 4 5 T. I bet the pot and the BB called. I bet the pot on the turn. I folded the river to a rag after a lot of thought. He so happily showed AQ for the missed. I thought to myself, 'wow. i don't really care about his bluff, those were bad -EV calls' then i realised i just got bluffed out of the pot, meaning, he also had huge equity that he could pick up the pot against the hands i hold i huge amount of time, so now his play actually becomes a +EV play. This case contains a lot of theory including the Shiana of hands i'd play like that and he'd play like that. Yet the point i'm showing in that case it was -EV for me to play 33 like that because of the river play against that player (his river bluff is protected by the Shiana of his river bets (meaning he'll do it legit enough for me to fold)), so i should have just folded 33 preflop.

Now these are WCP so they are going to adjust, they are going to realise you are raising players out of pots a lot, so they'll call down with AK high more, so you lose bluff equity but gain value on your hand, so you just readjust.

And even if you are slow to re-adjust to the player before the hand you could do it mid hand, when you realise on the flop after 3 betting him preflop he's calling you down this time.

[Ulysses]

Please, David? If you tell us what you think, I'll be your best friend!

[Nate tha' Great]

One thing nobody has mentioned is that you'd probably see about 70% more hands per hour in the first game.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing nobody has mentioned is that you'd probably see about 70% more hands per hour in the first game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, nobody except the people who mentioned it.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing nobody has mentioned is that you'd probably see about 70% more hands per hour in the first game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, nobody except the people who mentioned it.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing nobody has mentioned is that I attempted to read the entire thread in five minutes.

[andyfox]

Well, nobody except the people who mentioned it.

[MMMMMM]

"One thing nobody has mentioned is that you'd probably see about 70% more hands per hour in the first game."

Actually I believe this is true. I recall others mentioning seeing more hands per hour but only Nate 'Tha Great gave us the 70% figure.

[Baulucky]

Obviously the game with the champs is worth more: They can never beat you and they will never give up (ego) till they are broke, which is a lot more $ than the loose players could have.

p.s.: And you could get to write a book: "How I broke 9 World Poker Champs". Which would be very nice gravy +EV.

[Ulysses]

Please, David, leave the Books & Software forum for a minute and lend some infallible 2+2 commentary to this thread!

[Richard Berg]

Who actually bet against situation #1? Was it even money?

[grimhogun]

David,

Hello I am a new poster here to the two plus two forums but am a fan or your work and always find your books to be the best ones out there. Anyway I have been reading alot of posts here trying to improve my limit game and I came across this one and found it interesting so here's what I came up with.

I would have to say that although the variance would be significantly higher, in the long run the second game would still be much more valuable to you. My reasoning for this lies heavily on the fact that in the first game (despite your modifications later in the thread to please clarkmesiter of making the x-ray vision only applicable post-flop) they are all world class players. As such they will never be in spots where they are drawing dead and are very unlikely to put money into a pot where they are close to drawing dead.

Furthermore, while in this game you tend to be heads up quite often and will make the right play 100% of the time here, it figures to be a drastically smaller pot and one at which you could still lose should the wrong card fall on the river. Additionally, since you do not know your opponents cards pre-flop when you enter the pot you can not stand to win at any higher rate than at the comparative game, while the pot's size will be much smaller than the size of the comparable game's pot. Here while you do not know your opponents hands, you are selecting only premium hands that play well in volume pots in hopes of catching the nuts or a strong enough hand to withstand a multitude of opponents at showdown. Here your knowledge of odds on the flop and turn help you to make optimum decisions to ensure you are getting better than a 1-1 return on your investment at all times. Your main advantage in the first game is on the flop, turn, and river rounds of betting. Here I think that your advantage by knowing your opponents cards decreases in value as in the second game since your are striving to make a very clear best hand, rendering their specific hands somewhat irrelevant past the point of which you can estimate or get a read on what they are likely to have. Something that just occured to me that would also make the second game much more valuable is the ability to say check-raise and get called by the entire field with a hand like aks with a flop of all rags with either two or three of the corresponding suit. Here you may very well get called by every single opponent as they may all have a pair on board or draws to smaller flushes or overpairs as well. In this remarkable case you may have the nuts or may be drawing to them. Obviously only very rarely would an ace or king probably hold up at showdown as you are verly likely to be reverse dominated by a hand like king or ace corresponding rag. So when the flop is two and not three to the suit you are really only looking for the flush which still justify the check-raise as long as you have more than 3 other players in the game at the time. This is of course dependent on the fact that your opponents are somewhat aggressive and will bet at some point. It is hard to tell as the description of the players in the first game is world class, yet obviously this game the players are far from world-class, but assuming typical players whom for our test simply will not fold unless drawing to an overpair or better, will also bet at times allowing such a check-raise to be possible.
I am digressing slightly here but I think I have touched on a few of what I'm sure of a multitude of possible situations where the second game can be much more profitable for you. The first while great is simply a testament to the fact that great play or perfect play will not win you the pot if you do not have the cards. However, I think much of what you gain by knowing the cards of your opponents hands in the first game is forfeited by the fact that in the second game they never fold. Meaning you may as well know their cards here as well, as you are basically only drawing to the nuts or a hand close to it, (i.e a board of jjk73 with a hand of AJ, KJ, KK, JJ, 77, etc. while only JJ gives you the absolute nuts the others are certainly winning enough percentage of the time that you really don't lose much or conversenly gain much by saving the one bet the time you have AJ and your opponent has KJ, 77 etc. in this spot. The pot is simply so large at this point and this instance happens so rarely that the one bet loss here becomes negligible.

I apologize for this post running so long, it is a very difficult question and I am sure that I have missed many other points, but I am trying to think about this as logically as possible. If you have time it would be great to hear if there was any validity to my thoughts and your corresponding response. Thanks,

Rob

[nopepper]

I like the 1st game better as you will be stealing blinds with more frequency therefore turning a higher EV.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the 1st game better as you will be stealing blinds with more frequency therefore turning a higher EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Justin A

[nopepper]

granted...however its still the truth

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the 1st game better as you will be stealing blinds with more frequency therefore turning a higher EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know what the word 'therefore' means?

[AlexM]

The first game will easily be more profitable, even with the modification.

In the second game, the hands you win will be quite profitable, but you're only going to win one hand in 20 at best. Probably less, I'm giving what I feel to be a generous estimate.

On the other hand, in the first game, you should probably see every flop, no matter what your hand. Any "World Class" player is going to be pretty aggressive, jamming and raising the pot until they think they're beat, and sometimes even after that. When you don't know what they have, this is solid play, but when you know all their cards, this play becomes WORSE THAN THE PASSIVE PLAYERS IN THE SECOND SCENARIO. You would probably win a good 20-30% of the pots in this scenario, maybe more. They'd be smaller than the pots at the passive table, but not so much smaller that it comes close to making up for the quantity.

[Justin A]

No, it's not the truth. You will make money from stealing the blinds, but that does not make up for the ultra looseness of the second game. The first game gets its profit from post flop play. The first game is far more profitable, but not because you can steal the blinds every once in a while.

Justin A

[daryn]

seriously david, are we to expect a response? some people have actually made side bets on what you will say, and some of us just actually want to know.

enlighten!

[WhipMeBeatMe]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the 1st game better as you will be stealing blinds with more frequency therefore turning a higher EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be stealing blinds with about the same frequency or probably less, not more.

When you steal the blinds, the blinds are probably playing correctly or making a small mistake. You'd rather that they have an opportunity to make big mistakes so you need to let them in more often.

[adrianus]

I Like the first option.... beat the world class players and see how they play!!! This muust omprove your own game /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

But serious. I would still take option 1. Beside the fact that you know exactly where you're at in the hand you take away all their weapons like bluff and semi-bluff. Layne Flack and Phil Ivey.. please sit down /images/graemlins/grin.gif
You can also play way bigger games with the same bankroll as you will never lose 1 session .. but here we were talking 80-160 for both games..

But where do you make the money:

before the flop you never go in with a smaller pair, a lower kicker (AK vc AQ/AJ) or against an overpair. If you have position you can play otherwise mediocre hands to see the flop. You can raise hands where you are a big favorite. If the worldclass player notice this you have to mix it up a little. All these advantages might be worth 2-3 big bets an hour.
On the flop you know where you at and you can do the math. Knowing to fold your AA against his trip 222 is pretty huge here. This is also the point of your mediocre hands with position. Most of the gain of those hands must be here. This knowledge could be worth 1.5-2 big bets.
The turn. Did something change here??? Did someone hit his kicker, flush street etc. Do you have pot odds to call?? Or are you (still) ahead and make them pay to draw out on you. No need to say that their (semi-)bluffs won't work against you. And you do have the power to bluff. His AJ aginst your KQ when you both missed... Worth maybe 2 big bets.
The river: NEVER CALL NO MORE ON THE RIVER!!!! (unless you call a bluff with a hand behind you that you can beat). You never have to pay off a losing hand no more and can raise your 9 high flush against his 8 high flush. Worth maube 3 big bets.

I come to 8.5-10 big bets profit an hour!!!! You don't make that at the 0.5-1$ game at PartyPoker!!!

I'm not gonna analyse the second option this way but I think there is no limit game you can beat for 10 big bets.

[Cohiba Al]

Poker is a game of partial information, where more information equates to better returns. However information is too simple of a term for this question.

The best source is a consistent, orderly and significant stream of information that provides the player with not just clues but the proper clues to guide their play.

The worst source of information is a chaotic stream full of garbage that hides, disguises, and even possibly alters the perception of what actual valuable data that stream contains. In this case perhaps no information might be preferrable.

In Situation #1 that David posed, the player is presented with the best sort of information. Additionally the player is aware of how those world class players will most likely play out the cards he knows they hold, providing him with even "information of the future".

In Situation #2 posed by David, the player is confronted with the worst sort of information compounded by the additional choas that is often associated with loose, no-fold'em hold'em, limited poker understanding players. Not only is the player unable to put opponents on a hand, but that player can never be certain how they will play a hand either.

Given these two option, the logical choice is Situation #1 where the player can know for certain what cards are held by each opponent. This should provide an aware and knowledgeable player the best chance at decent profits over the long-run.

Answering the original question "whether you ought to do better in games where players are very loose or where they are very predictable" becomes easier then. Predictability in normal players does not equate to tight or passive. Some can be predictably loose, aggressive, or weak as well. Predictability only provides a better source of information to guide one's play against opponents. This equates into better profits at the poker table.

[Ulysses]

This looks like an interesting question. I think the game with marked cards is more profitable.

[andyfox]

David will give us his thoughts anon; for the present, he's too busy on RGP.

[David Sklansky]

To answer this question accurately takes complex analysis that I am not interested in undertaking. I will say a few things though. One is that the second game is more profitable than most of you think. Any pot you win will have so many more bets in it than usual that it easily makes up for the pots you will now lose. Remember that according to the rules, you will usually have most of the excess callers drawing dead or almost dead.

In spite of the above, the original first game has to be more profitable. Common sense guys. Especially if you measure things as bets per hour. Even more especially if you are using some type of Kelly Criterian that rate higher, equal Evs with less volatility. But even if you are rating according to EV per hand I am almost sure the marked cards option is better IF you play it properly. That means making some nice bluffs or perhps pseudo bluffs where you get out the best hand on fourth st and leave yourself head up with a draw.

Of course Clarkmeister was right in claiming the original hypothetical was not the proper analogy. And from that point on no one should have been talking about the first question. It is the second question where the cards aren't marked until post flop that may be close. But that means getting the right answer won't automatically prove which is better between wild games and predictable games. I posed the question, as I often do simply as an exercise in thinking.

[elysium]

hi everyone

well, there it is. ahem.... i think an apology is in order.

[SpicyF]

Thank you David for the replys, and a warm thanks to a 2+2 poster for loosing 0,7% of his poker bankroll too me!

David, what is the Risc of Ruin % if you risc 0,7% of your bankroll and always chose game 2 on an even money bet? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[J.A.Sucker]

The risk of ruin on betting 0.7% of your bankroll on David's brain teaser questions (either side) at even money is ZERO, because he'll never post enough answers to make a dent in your roll. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The Dude]

So, uh, El Diablo. Who won the bet?

[jogger08152]

New user posting here, so bear with me.

Against the table of world class players, at least for me (a fishy player for sure compared to most on here, based on the posts I've read), it would be nearly impossible to bluff successfully. They'd catch a tell of some kind, if only because my fear of their tell-reading abilities would shake me up.

Moreover (and in part because of the problem above), they would (presumably) quickly be able to read my value bets/raises for precisely what they are, and correctly fold. I would win at this table pretty much the same way I'd expect to win at the second: by holding (though usually not showing down) the best hand.

I would occasionally have to make a "bad" play, not so that they would call my bluffs later, but so they would call my value bets. This would cut into my expectation. Maybe someone else could speculate on exactly how much I'd have to give back in order to elicit future calls from the WCP's (always assuming I could hide the fact that these "errors" were deliberate from the WCP's, which I'm not sure I could do).

Likewise, I could rarely chase a draw, because the WCP's would (presumably) bet, raise, and reraise to hose my drawing odds.

I'd comment on the WCP's conventional hand-reading skills, but it would quickly become moot: if I bet or raise, it's because I have the best of it, as they would learn fairly quickly. Unless I could shore up my bluffing abilities, it would be difficult to profit much from them because of the few relative errors they would make. In fact, the only absolutely clear edge I could see for myself long-term (except if/when they bet into me on the end) would be pre-flop errors from WCM's in earlier position than myself (or on-the-flop errors, if I came in with a slight underdog of a hand and caught a piece of it when they didn't).

At the other table, despite the big fluctuations my bankroll would suffer, I would have a pretty high profit margin: those times when I flop a four-flush, a set, or an open-straight, my value bets and raises would be murderously profitable. You just adjust to figure that top pair, best kicker type hands aren't particularly valuable here.

Obviously the important issue would be the aggressiveness factor at the loose table; if the players there played passively as well as loosely, the profits would be pretty enormous.

For me at least though, generally the second table would be better.