is this legal to do? - Page 3

#21 11-09-2005, 07:47 AM

Out of interest, is it legal when in the position that Doyle Brunson describes in SuperSystem? Basically, you are down to being the only player left to act - calling all-in bets. Is it legal to flip your cards over at that point in order to see how your opponents react? Would such a flip ever be deemed a call?

#22 11-09-2005, 08:43 AM

According to the TDA, which my poker room uses for official rules:
---------------------------------------------
7 Penalties A penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, if a card(s) goes off the table, if soft-play occurs, or similar incidents take place. Penalties WILL be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents.
---------------------------------------------
35 Expose A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty, but will not have his hand killed.
---------------------------------------------

This means crap for cash games, that is up to local rules.

As for the whole "you're an idiot"/"maximize EV"/"My God this is so stupid" replies, I completely disagree. While you are not maximizing expected profit on the hand, you are indeed maximizing your own personal utility. Sometimes EV decisions are not all that matter in life.

Example to those giving him a hard time: Would you be willing to risk your entire life savings for a 1-in-1000 shot at something that pays 1001-to-1, simply because it is EV?

Diminishing marginal utility, risk-aversion -- these are not concepts for idiots, but for realists.

#23 11-09-2005, 09:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Out of interest, is it legal when in the position that Doyle Brunson describes in SuperSystem? Basically, you are down to being the only player left to act - calling all-in bets. Is it legal to flip your cards over at that point in order to see how your opponents react? Would such a flip ever be deemed a call?

[/ QUOTE ]

No - that has the same effect as a string bet - gaining additional information. If you do that your hand will be ruled dead.

#24 11-09-2005, 09:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As for the whole "you're an idiot"/"maximize EV"/"My God this is so stupid" replies, I completely disagree. While you are not maximizing expected profit on the hand, you are indeed maximizing your own personal utility. Sometimes EV decisions are not all that matter in life.

Example to those giving him a hard time: Would you be willing to risk your entire life savings for a 1-in-1000 shot at something that pays 1001-to-1, simply because it is EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

We arent talking about life savings. We're talking about a poker tournament where there pretty much are NO better places to get your money all in. Preflop AA is an 87% favorite over the BEST possible holding (JTs where the As dont have a matching suit).

So yes - he is an idiot. And frankly, I want people like him and you at my table... because if you are going to play scared, I am going to make you pay for it. If you have to have the ultimate nuts to put your money in the pot, you are never going to win anything.

#25 11-09-2005, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We arent talking about life savings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you missed my point completely.

I used life savings as an extreme example of where risk-aversion exceeds marginal utility for most people. For this individual , that point occurs much less than at life savings.

[ QUOTE ]

And frankly, I want people like him and you at my table...

[/ QUOTE ]

Strike two. I said I understood him, not that I would act like him.

An example hand (numbers generated from Poker Stove)

Order of hands...
KK, AA, QQ, 56s, JTs

KK goes all-in, AA calls and shows hand to players
QQ, 56s, JTs all fold.
81% of the time AA wins, ExProfit of $62

KK goes all-in, AA calls and DOES NOT show
QQ will call.
56s will (correctly) call.
JTs will/will not call depending on the player.

If JTs folds, AA wins 45% ExProfit of $80
If JTs calls, AA wins 36% ExProfit of $80

Now, I understand that you are smart and +EV decisions are all that matter and you are the greatest poker player ever, etc.

But what if this was the end of a tournament. What if this was the last hand of the night for you? What if ______? Would you sacrifice 80% equity for 36% equity just to make an extra $18 bucks in expected profit? I just hope you can see how a rational human could hold a different opinion in this matter.

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to make [him] pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. His aversion, once learned, is easily exploitable. The tactic that initially cut down his variance will possibly be the leak that breaks him. If you are doing this every time you get AA, then you are probably playing above your head. You clearly want to play at a limit where risk-avoidance strategies are RARELY an option.

#26 11-09-2005, 11:17 AM

I get what you are saying - but the way I think... and the way that most people around these parts seem to thing - is that if you dont push the edges that you have you are not playing up to your potential.

AA comes around on average, once every 169 hands. Thats 3+ hours at a live table. How many better chances do you expect to get? In tournament poker, there is no way you are winning a tourney without being all in at least a few times. Are you playing to make in into the money or are you playing to win the whole thing?

According to both Harrington and Gorden, playing to win and not just to money is the ONLY way to play. I tend to think they know what they are talking about.

TexArcher · #27 11-09-2005, 11:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Example to those giving him a hard time: Would you be willing to risk your entire life savings for a 1-in-1000 shot at something that pays 1001-to-1, simply because it is EV?

Diminishing marginal utility, risk-aversion -- these are not concepts for idiots, but for realists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are concepts for realist, but they just don't apply here. Playing aces all-in against two opponents is still about a 67% to 71% favorite (and could be higher if they're sharing a card or holding an ace). That's down from being about an 82% favorite heads up.

For the sake of using round numbers let's sum it up this way -- you're calling taking an 80% chance at winning two units instead of a 70% chance of winning 3 units "risk aversion"??

TexArcher · #28 11-09-2005, 11:49 AM

Odds of being dealt AA are actually 220 to 1 and AA is a 78% favorite over JT suited, not 87%. Not trying to be an ass.

#29 11-09-2005, 12:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Odds of being dealt AA are actually 220 to 1 and AA is a 78% favorite over JT suited, not 87%. Not trying to be an ass.

[/ QUOTE ] yeah - I knew the 78% - just mistyped that. THe AA, all I did was take the total number of unique hand types. Didnt bother to figure in that there are only half as many ways to make PPs as there is offsuit non-matched cards.

Good catch.

Xhad · #30 11-09-2005, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
According to the TDA, which my poker room uses for official rules:
---------------------------------------------
7 Penalties A penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, if a card(s) goes off the table, if soft-play occurs, or similar incidents take place. Penalties WILL be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents.
---------------------------------------------
35 Expose A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty, but will not have his hand killed.
---------------------------------------------

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe TDA makes an exception when the tournament (not the hand but the entire tournament) becomes heads-up. In cash games the rule is mostly to prevent killing other people's action, but in tournaments there is also the factor of collusion. Neither of these is a concern heads-up.