Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

How about Andrew Shykovsky's article on how to play jacks and queens.

[ QUOTE ]
By the same token, holding jacks or queens in the big blind requires a very different attitude. People have pretty much decided that they are going to see the flop by the time the action gets to me. It seems rare that middle-limit recreational players have the discipline to drop out once they have called even one preflop bet, despite how weak their hand may be. As such, aggression may best be saved for a more opportune moment, when it can create pressure and achieve something worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Like, getting more money in the pot when you have a big advantage?

Re: Ciaffone\'s error
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 cards that are not paired, that means there is 50*49/2 = 1225 other starting hands possible. Of those, 72 can be pocket pairs (78 max, but you have 6 potential pairs blocked). 72/1225 = 5.878% chance one person will have pocket pair = 1 chance in 17 = 16:1 against.

So, it is 16:1 that any given player will have a pocket pair, not 17:1.

5.878% x 2 players = 11.756% chance 2 players might have at least one pair between them = 1 chance in 8.5 that either player will have pocket pair = 7.5:1 against.


[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read the articles. But isn't there an easier way to do your calculation?

The odds of getting a card are 1/1. The odds of getting the same rank as your second card is 3/51 or 1/17. Multiply 1/1 by 1/17 to get 1/17...heh...so, odds of getting a pair is 1 out of 17 or 16:1.

3 years ago, on Planet Poker, Mike Caro or Roy Cooke used to join a game now and then and throw out $100 bones for getting questions right. I snagged the 16:1 answer for 100 bucks. At the same time, bunch of other answers came on the chatbox ranging from 3:1 to 50:1 to 220:1. And this was a 20-40 game.

Anyway, I suddenly understood why it was that the guy who thought it was 3:1 was constantly tilting and complaining that he was the most unlucky player in the world...heh.

Re: Ciaffone\'s error
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 cards that are not paired, that means there is 50*49/2 = 1225 other starting hands possible. Of those, 72 can be pocket pairs (78 max, but you have 6 potential pairs blocked). 72/1225 = 5.878% chance one person will have pocket pair = 1 chance in 17 = 16:1 against.

So, it is 16:1 that any given player will have a pocket pair, not 17:1.

5.878% x 2 players = 11.756% chance 2 players might have at least one pair between them = 1 chance in 8.5 that either player will have pocket pair = 7.5:1 against.


[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read the articles. But isn't there an easier way to do your calculation?

The odds of getting a card are 1/1. The odds of getting the same rank as your second card is 3/51 or 1/17. Multiply 1/1 by 1/17 to get 1/17...heh...so, odds of getting a pair is 1 out of 17 or 16:1.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - the odds of being dealt one pair with 52 unseen cards are exactly 16:1. Your math works. More precisely, there are 78 possible pairs and 1326 possible 2 card starting hands.

However, the problem presented by Ciaffone was slightly different. He posits you have an unpaired hand, and then comes up with odds that there is a pair in the big blind, or either blind.

In fact, the odds are fractionally worse than 16:1 of a someone having a pair when you don't have a pair.

To take it a step further, the odds are ever so slightly greater someone else has pair when YOU have a pair than when you DON'T have a pair.

See why?

Re: The Jones Article
 

Well, I read the Jones article.

Few Points:

1. 17 sb's preflop.

11 sb's on the flop for 28 total

Turn: 8 more sb's when the action gets back to Lee and he has to decide whether to just call or 3 bet. So, that's 36 sb. If he just calls, he makes it 38 sb. UTG (if he has a pocket pair) will be getting 19:1 and should call with his 2 outer given implied odds.

If Lee 3 bets the turn, he makes it 40 sb in the pot. UTG will only be getting 10:1 on his 2 outer with the chance that it could get worse if button raises.

So, if Lee puts the dude on a pocket pair, he should obviously raise.

2. But I am not sure how Lee so single-mindedly puts UTG on a pocket pair however. The betting is capped preflop and it goes 3 bets on an Ace high rainbow flop. UTG then still bets the turn. This guy is a maverick if he is betting JJ. UTG could well have an Ace which (likely) gives him a 3 outer to win and a 3 outer to tie with the remaining Ace and two remaining 5's. Granted, button may also have an Ace but overall, we'll call it a 4 outer for UTG if he has say AQ or AT or whatever.

If Jones 3 bets the turn, he makes it 40 sb in the pot. UTG will be getting 10:1 on a 4 outer which makes it correct (or pretty damn close) to call but he just might fold which would be good for Jones. Even better if UTG folds AK (which is not out of the realm of possibility given all the heat).

So, the turn play seems wrong given Lee's read on the situation.

3. There was a player who initially raised the flop and then folded when it came back to him for one more bet. He would have therefore folded when the pot had 28 bets in it. Lee puts him on a hand like QQ after he folds. Surely, he didn't fold QQ getting 28:1? Lee goes on to say that "I made a note about him". I sure hope it wasn't "hm…watch out..good player".

BTW, I like Lee and enjoyed his posts here when he was around. But this article does seem to have some holes. My analysis above might as well but I am not under the microscope.

Re: Ciaffone\'s error
 

Okay. well and good. I hadn't realized context of your calculation as I hadn't read Bob's article.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

S&M promote a similiar strategy in multi-way pots. I think there was a thread a long time ago where Sklansky made the point that if you are in a multiway pot in the big blind, it is better to raise pre-flop with 99 than QQ.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I haven't read any of the articles D.S. referred to (except for a couple of the quoted excerpts) but when I read his post I immediately thought of good ol' Shykovsky and his abnormally super-weak advice that he seems to spew in virtually every one his articles that i have read (which is not too many).


Regarding D.S. 'holding back' or 'being mean':

I agree with the others....I have no problem with D.S. going into further details as to the problems he has with each article and with the general advice that each author typically offers. in fact, I would welcome more thoughts from David on this.


As long as it doesn't get 'personal' and is related to the content (as opposed to background or supposed qualifications) then i'm all for hearing EVERYTHING that D.S. has to say about these authors' articles and books and ideas.


I do appreciate D.S.'s reluctance to not want to create any waves though considering what we've been through before.
There have been times when he has 'honestly' presented his views and been blasted for it.



Obviously he wants to keep the topic on-point and not get too far off-track...and I think he was very fair in stating his opinions on these authors and their CP articles.

Moreover, I appreciate him coming on and presenting his ideas on just how significant the errors are in these articles.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I haven't read Shykovsky's article yet, but from what you quoted, it seems to me what he's saying is your edge with JJ is small preflop and you have no hope of thinning the field. If the flop comes down safe you will have a bigger edge and you can c/r and thin the field then. If it comes down bad, you can get away from it.