Re: The Errors I Saw
 

As to his argument that you shouldn't make it three bets with the A4s, it didn't even mention the main reason we suggested it, to get a free card on fourth st. Making your ace out good was a secondary consideration. The play is wrong if your opponents are less than about 50-50 to give you that free card and we say it is "probably" the right move in our book. So unlike the AT recommendation, I have no problem with this play being criticized. But unless I skimmed so fast that I somehow missed it, I have a big problem with Brier criticizing the play without taking into account the free card aspect.

I accept some of the blame, since the way I worded the answer it isn't entirely clear that the free card aspect is clearly dominant. Also, I put them in 1, 2 order... and to many that would imply that #1 is more important.

In my twisted brain, I generally place the more important thing last (I almost certainly do this elsewhere in the book too, so be careful).. as in, "Let's get this less important thing out of the way so we can discuss the more important one."

So it's not as clear in the explanation as it could be that this is primarily a free card play. On the other hand, I think you should be able to figure that out if you think about it for a minute or two.

As for the argumentation on this play... I have been somewhat pursuaded by it. I still think 3-betting is usually the correct play, particularly at small stakes B&M games (my primary model game for the book.. small stakes internet games would be probably the secondary model). But there are definitely circumstances under which calling would be better, and I think they arise more than I had thought when I wrote the example.

Some things that make you less inclined to 3-bet:

1. If the cap on the flop is 5 bets instead of 4.
2. If the flop raiser is likely to raise only with a very strong hand
3. If your opponents are generally very aggressive and thus likely in general to 4-bet and/or bet the turn
4. If the preflop raiser is likely to raise with only a very strong hand (a la Paluka's response)
There's more, but I don't have time...

But I think there are some upsides to 3-betting that haven't been explored as well... namely, if you don't 3-bet this hand ever, then what hands DO you 3-bet on the button after limping in on a K52 rainbow flop? Unless you are packing 43s, you basically must have at least kings up. Adding in raises with hands like this sometimes makes your play more unpredictable, which makes you money on EVERY hand you play. So it could be right to reraise even if you are sure that calling is the slightly better play FOR THIS HAND ONLY.

Yeah, yeah, your opponents don't pay attention, so this is worthless. Well, that's not quite right, it is worth something... and furthermore, these are plays you need to incorporate if you want to move up and beat bigger games as well.

I know plenty of players at $20-$40 who MUST have kings up when they 3-bet on the button in this scenario (see Zeno, I didn't say "spot"). And those players tend not to do very well.

Anyway, the ATs raise is, to me, not really worth arguing. It's clearly right, no matter what your game is like. The A4s play has more argue in it... and I'm glad it came up.

Re: The Errors I Saw
 

My question, at least with the pure math errors is: Doesn't CardPlayer have editors?

For example, I assume that if an author submitted an otherwise acceptable acceptable text to 2+2 but had blown the math, you'd correct it before you went to print

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles - Barry Tannenbaum
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey David-

I was just skimming the issue today and I came across this paragraph in Barry Tannenbaums article which I think is quite bad. Not only cause it is bad advice but it happens to be exceptionally bad advice for the game he was in (3060 Bellagio)

"I got a free play in the big blind while holding K7o. Four players had limped in, and the small blind had called, so we were looking at six small bets.

The flop came K T 3 {Rainbow} and the small blind checked. This is not the sort of situation I like to get invovled with. I had a hand that I would never have played had it not been in the blind. I was out of position . My kick was weak. The pot was small. If I bet and got any action, there was a good chance I was beat. Generally, I check and fold in this kind of situation, and I decided to do so here."

This seems like exceptionally weak tight and bad advice. He flops top pair, in what is probably a very weak 30 game where the limpers figure to have close to nothing, and he decides that folding is the best play before there is really any action.

Now I think Barry is a solid player and at least a mediocre writer in the context of how bad some of the writers that Cardplayer uses are.

But this advice seems awfully bad. I think its clearly wrong advice in general and extremely bad advice given how bad the players in the 3060 Bellagio game are. unless somebody flopped a set of 3's there is a good enough chance that he has the best hand for him to lead out the flop or go for a CR and play it from there. Now if you cant play at all postflop then I suppose folding is ok. But thats pretty sad.

Cheers

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the correct play here to check-raise, particularly if someone in late position takes a stab at the pot?

Re: The Errors I Saw
 

I'm sorry for writing before thinking earlier but you are wrong to link the two mistakes. I really don't have a problem with you but I know from first hand knowledge how much of a systemic problem using percenages and odds interchangebly are. I use to make this mistake and it cost me money because on close calls I thought I was getting the correct odds to make a call when in fact I didn't. I think it has cost me more than 100BB over hundreds of thousands of hands. I am mad because I now wonder if it was my mistake or if I got it from reading card player and trusting someone who has a lot more experience than me. 1/17 and 1 in 16 are close but 1/3 and 1 in 2 are not.

Re: The Errors I Saw
 

Edit: This is the last time I argue something that doesn't matter either way after being awake 40 hours.

Re: The Errors I Saw
 

Well, Ciaffone hasn't made this error in his other writings. So either he or his regular editor fix this before his other works hit the prints.

I think the blame is more on the CardPlayer editor than on Ciaffone. (Let's not forget that the editor might very well have changed Ciaffone's correct writing into the error we saw in print.)

And somehow I doubt that this is the worst advice you'd pick up from CP. There is some really bizarre advice in some articles on a fairly regular basis. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Besides, I know how I make these errors in drafts. I use the correct math for the context, then change the context without changing the math.

Re: The Errors I Saw
 

Maybe card player is just trying to soften up the games a little bit and we should be thanking them. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] They did mess with me when I was a rookie though.

Re: The Errors I Saw
 

Good post, Eddie.

Your exchanges with Jim have been pretty damn useful to all of us. Great to see two very clever guys discussing poker at such a high level and in such a classy manner.

Maybe you could encourage Jim to get back on 2+2.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles - Barry Tannenbaum
 

I too was taken aback by this passage in Barry's piece.

But I completely disagree that he is a "mediocre" writer. He and Roy Cooke are CP's best.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not only would two plus two authors never make these mistakes, neither would the likes of Roy Cooke, Dan Kimberg or Howard Lederer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you should mention Lederer in this context. In his video he makes exactly the same type of fundamental math error that Ciaffone made.