Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Ed, thank you so much for this post. It makes me cringe when I hear people use rareness as an excuse to pass up small EV+ situations.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did want to discuss this idea, though:

VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit of a tangent but I wanted to ask this anyways.

Ed, does this concept apply when the bets are very large relative to bankroll? I learned about risk-aversion in Econ class and to me, this would be the perfect example of it. I know we weren't talking about huge games and stuff (just the usual 1/2 games we play), but IF we were talking about huge life-savings type bets, even if it were +EV, wouldn't it still be correct to pass it up?

Re: A quick note about emulating your teacher
 

"Most of you guys play small anyway. You play $0.50-$1, $1-2, $2-$4, etc. If you lose a few hundred bets, who cares? Spend an afternoon mowing lawns and you'll have a brand new bankroll."

Ed, I think SSHE is terrific, and your theories are as strong as David's. I think your explainations are direct and to the point. Thank you.

I now see the same arrogance, conceit, and dismissal in your posts as I often see in David's. You must be very proud. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is a good point. If the swings get so wild that a) you have to move down in limit more often or b) have to have a much larger BR (which is the same as being forced to play at a lower limit) how does that impact the situation?

With infinite money and infinite time it is easier to argue that you should take razor thin +EV situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting this wrong. The variance in limit poker is already high enough where pushing small EV situations isn't changing it much. The situations in Ed's book that get everyone's panties twisted--like raising a possible second best hand in a huge pot--is costing an extra bet or two. If your bankroll can't handle 2-3 BBs to slightly improve your chances of winning 15-20 BBs, you're playing too big already.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

I know we weren't talking about huge games and stuff (just the usual 1/2 games we play), but IF we were talking about huge life-savings type bets, even if it were +EV, wouldn't it still be correct to pass it up?

Yes. This is the principle behind the Kelly Criterion.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.

My point is that in LIMIT poker, these Kelly-overbetting situations just don't come up often enough to worry about. That's because there is a cap on how much you are allowed to bet.

If the amount you can bet is unlimited, then you have to be careful about comparing the size of your edge to the size of your bankroll and sizing correct. (Again, read up on the Kelly Criterion.) But in LIMIT poker, it's really not a pressing concern.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.

To prove this to yourself, you can view any set of bets as a single bet with many possible outcomes. For instance, say you flip a coin three times. For each time it comes heads, you win $1. Each time it comes tails, you lose a $1.

Instead of looking at it as three different bets, you can view it as a single bet with eight possible outcomes. That is, if it comes HHH, you win $3. HHT, and you win $1. Etc. There is no difference in "profitability" whether you view it as a series of N independent "common" bets, or one "rare" bet with 2^N possible outcomes.

Likewise, your bankroll doesn't care what game you are playing, or what situation came up. All it cares is that you made a bet with an EV of +$X/wager with a std. dev. of $Y/wager. It doesn't care if that wager was made at faro or tiddle-e-winks.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you very much for your reply... this was the concept that confused me. i'm still not sure about it, but thank you none the less. independence is tricky in these situations. look at my post about gambling gus in the probability forum. i don't believe your sports betting analogy applies though, because the outcome chances are not fixed...

the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation. you'll generally need the trips. the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips (because even though rarer, you'll lose a lot more when you both flop trips)

in my mind, the DEFAULT play would be to fold unless you were sure that both of your raisers very likely don't have JJ, QQ, KK or AA, because if they do, it is -EV. the rarity and variance issues came up as i was trying to prove this. TT should not call there because it is GENERALLY not +EV even in these loose games. an early raise is still an early raise, and 2 early raises is screaming AA,KK,QQ,AKs.

anyways, i'm sure the postflop sections will give me a few new insights, and i look forward to the rest of the book.

until then, i want to remind you again that you were wrong on the explanation of why position has value... it is because you KNOW what they are doing ALWAYS. their guessing wrong does not imply profit ALWAYS, only most of the time. you should add a footnote in the second edition. something like "* unless they guess you will bet and they intend to raise in a situation where you are favored".

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]

the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation. you'll generally need the trips. the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips (because even though rarer, you'll lose a lot more when you both flop trips)

[/ QUOTE ]

You hit trips with TT a lot more often than 6%.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

E-Drug Trader,

[ QUOTE ]
anyways, i'm sure the postflop sections will give me a few new insights, and i look forward to the rest of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to buy a new book, since you soiled pages 56-80 already.

[ QUOTE ]

until then, i want to remind you again that you were wrong on the explanation of why position has value... it is because you KNOW what they are doing ALWAYS. their guessing wrong does not imply profit ALWAYS, only most of the time. you should add a footnote in the second edition. something like "* unless they guess you will bet and they intend to raise in a situation where you are favored".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should have read pages 56-80. Somewhere along the line Ed acknowledges that you may get trapped occasionally, but the value you extract from people who are willing to pay you off more than makes up for it. And yes, it ALWAYS profitable. You're being results oriented here. If it's +EV, then it ALWAYS is profitable, even if you happen to lose the hand.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - math please, otherwise your entire argument is bullsh[/b]it

2 - there are preflop situations where you will win less than your "fair share", yet are hugely profitable when played correctly, so saying "you only win 6% of the time" isn't necessarily an argument for folding a hand.