|
|
#2
08-30-2005, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Barron\'s Article.
When you put it that way....
But is that the whole story? I'll admit that this is VERY different from how I'll play out most hands ... but it was a VERY unusual situation, one that I think will come up often enough for those of us who log the hands that I do. There were 12.75 big bets in pre-flop. On the flop, folding for the two small bets is an error, as is folding when it comes back to me for two more small bets. The turn is a VERY thin line of action, but the odds were still there, in my view, and they are elaborated extensively in the middle of the article. The pot ended up as almost FORTY FIVE big bets -- that is an INSANE pot. So it isn't as simple as calling six bets with a gutshot, is it...? But, as to your main point, you cannot go "broke" playing like this, as these situations, while they will come up, are NOT that commonplace, even if it is "wrong" (which I don't believe it is). I think it was Ed Miller who wrote about what mistakes will cost you what, and even if you assume this line was a "mistake," if it even came up once a month, it would be costing you 6 big bets once a month... But it's not even losing the 6 bb once a month, it's just a FRACTION of that, as even if you don't believe the line right, it's VERY close to right if you want to argue another side... ...admittedly a side that I won't agree with. Much like you don't lose much by folding every time you have a royal flush (as his example was, if memory serves). Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com 
|
|
#3
08-30-2005, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
Barron, thanks for responding. After I made my post, I regretted the tone that I used. I've responded to your last two articles, and I think that's because I like your writing style over all. You are clear and precise .. sort of Ed Milleresque.
Its interesting that all of the calls were border line and those are the hands that separate the experts from people like myself. Anyway, it was a heck of a hand, and quite an expensive gutshot. I'm sure the guy with the set of aces was happy you stuck around!
|
|
#4
08-30-2005, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback (good or bad, it's all better than none at all).
I do believe their is some razor-thin profit to be made when you have knowledge of your opponents AND you can calculate your implied pot odds accordingly. Even beyond that aforementioned razor-thin line there is more to be gained as well, which you sort of implied: when you play at the middle stakes online (say, $30-$60 and beyond) the quantity of your opponents is minimal so people oftentimes get to know each other very well. Likewise if you regularly play at your local B&M room. The advertising you gain from something as simple as "he called 6 bets for a gutshot" can be HUGE, especially if people know you (and, from that, it makes it sound terrible, without hearing the situation or the monstrous pot involved). Which can then, in many situations, let you get paid off even more. FAR be it that I'm 100% convinced I played that (or every) hand correctly, but I believe it is ... and I'm always trying to constantly cycle through the math and lessons we all are trying to learn from the real experts: guys like David, Mason, Ed, and the rest of the 2+2 authors. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#5
08-30-2005, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
I liked your article and while several of your decisions are close, all of them seem reasonable. Nice hand.
[ QUOTE ] I had a gutshot draw. Player No. 1 bet, the first cold-caller raised, two of the other three folded, one called, and it was to me. If I hadn't raised pre-flop, the original raiser could not have capped. There would just be 6.75 big bets on the flop, which would make facing these raises and reraises unprofitable on a gutshot, especially considering the reverse implied odds of someone back-dooring a flush or full house, not to mention there was a chance Player No. 3 held the same hand as I. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This pot wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't raised king-queen suited, which built the pot to a size where I could play a draw, whereas I wouldn't have had the odds otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] You are dancing very close to trouble here. You don't actually come out and say the wrong thing but I suspect many readers are leaping to a bad conclusion. When you see the AJ6r flop with no backdoor and it is two bets to you, are you happy with your preflop reraise or do you want a mulligan? In other words, if you knew then what you know now, would you still reraise? This isn't a practical question of course but it is still useful because of the way many players think about preflop play. As you observe, the preflop reraise is what makes it possible to continue playing this flop. Without it you would need to fold due to insufficient odds to draw. Based upon that many players might conclude that the preflop reraise was successful. But it wasn't. The flop reraise was probably a +EV gamble but you lost. If someone gave you the option of taking back the preflop reraise and folding this flop you should happily accept. That's not allowed of course, so you'll just have to make due with reality. The pot is huge and worth chasing. But it's just a salvage operation at this point. Most of your preflop investment is lost and the current value of your hand on this flop is less than 1 SB. I think the reraise with KQs is an OK play because it probably gains when all the possible outcomes are considered. But let there be no doubt that getting capped and catching this flop is a very bad outcome. Proper analysis of preflop actions is impossible if we fail to classify results properly.
|
|
#6
08-30-2005, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
Are you asking if I could go back in time, knowing the flop, and fold pre-flop, would I...?
Obviously, yes. But since that money is, as you point out, lost, you do what you have to do and figure out whether it is worth abandoning ship or trying to make your hand. The main point was that the raise pre-flop is what distinguishes this hand, as, if we were to take a poll (and I haven't, so this is purely hypothetical) I imagine that a notable percentage (whether a minority or majority, I don't know, but it would be a decent amount of people) would call in this spot ... and that's where knowing the lessons backwards and forwards comes in handy, as hands like this illustrate. Sure, it's high variance, sure, the flop was horrendous, but we really can't be results-oriented, as it's about the long term, as long as we're playing within our means*, and making the correct EV plays. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com *I know someone is jumping out thinking that "within our means" shouldn't be an issue with making EV plays, but this is assuming an unlimited bankroll, and, I don't know about you, but I'll make $100 bets every day of the week on a 50.01 vs. 49.99 gamble, but ask me to make $1,000,000 bets on the same odds, and I'm out of the there.
|
|
#7
08-31-2005, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
Just a question based on the theory of this situation.
Baron, according to your article, you are building the pot preflop just to get the odds you need to play post flop. So, if the situation came about where the fellow under the gun raised ($20) and then the pot got reraised ($30) and reraised again ($40) and there were 2 cold-callers all in front of you. Pot is ($185) or 9.25 Big Bets to you. It will most likely get to 12.75 Big Bets before the flop assuming you, the fellow under the gun, and the first reraiser all call. I am fully a no limit player, so maybe I am completely wrong here, but are you saying that this is also correct call simply because you will be getting great odds after the flop? Here, you are getting 6.375:1 preflop with KQs. In limit is that enough to play KQs anytime? Would it not be better to play 67s to make sure that if you hit your straight you are not likely to be against a set who could draw to a full house? Best Regards, MG NL Player
|
|
#8
08-31-2005, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
It is virtually never correct to call more than 3+ bets cold with KQs.
When it is four bets to you the borderline hands are usually QQ, JJ, and AK. Since you know it will be six-handed you might expand that slightly. [ QUOTE ] In limit is that enough to play KQs anytime? Would it not be better to play 67s to make sure that if you hit your straight you are not likely to be against a set who could draw to a full house? [/ QUOTE ] This illustrates a common misconception. At limit, the primary purpose of playing hands such as KQs and Axs it to flop top pair. There are not enough straights and flushes in the world to justify calling the blind much less paying multiple bets preflop. Flush and straight potential is an important source of extra chances that may be important to making a hand profitable, but most of your wins still come from flopping a pair and nursing it home. In the giant pot described in the article a flop of Q86 is very profitable for KQs even though Villain sometimes has AA-QQ. You may already have the best hand and often you will hit your hand again and improve to a probable winner. Maybe you will lose more often than you win but that's OK because you are not at risk of losing your entire stack. You just payoff the rockets and move on to the next hand. The big wins more than make up for the losers. 76s is a trash hand because it lacks this big card potential. It's usually playable for at most one bet and even then it requires pretty favorable circumstances.
|
|
#9
08-31-2005, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
[ QUOTE ]
It is virtually never correct to call more than 3+ bets cold with KQs. [/ QUOTE ] You disagree, then, with the tables laid out by Ed Miller in "Small Stakes Hold 'em," p. 83. Do you disagree with other holdings in the list, or just that one? Why? Why not? Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#10
09-01-2005, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
[ QUOTE ]
You disagree, then, with the tables laid out by Ed Miller in "Small Stakes Hold 'em," p. 83. Do you disagree with other holdings in the list, or just that one? Why? Why not? [/ QUOTE ] It really does say that, doesn't it? [He says play TT+, AJs+, AKo, KQs for three bets in late position provided that at least four players are already in the pot. Ed has stated in these forums that some of the preflop advice in the book tables is slightly nonoptimal because he wanted to keep it reasonably simple.] My comments: I would usually not play AJs or KQs in this situation. I think I would rather have 99 or AQo but I probably wouldn't play them either. In a bizarre situation with six or seven opponents already in I might loosen up. It also depends on the raising standards of my opponents and how terribly they all play postflop. I think Ed is used to live players who play more terribly than anything I've ever seen online. So perhaps I am suffering from a failure of imagination. If I thought the inital raise promised TT+ or AQ+ as you described I would play much tighter. That's a very dangerous situation.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
