Re: Math shows folding is correct.
 

I've always been curious how one figures all this math out in the heat of the moment. I can understand putting people on hands and knowing if you are a favorite, but all the EV weighted calcs seem a lot harder to do a the table. Does one get better as situations repeat???? Do yo study common structured hand problems and as the closest ones come up say "oh that's that one" - fold
Someone enlighten me.

Re: Math shows folding is correct.
 

Note: It seems that if you consider the flops where you flop trips, two pair, or a flush draw (flops allowing you to make a +EV call), the call is closer to being correct, but still not as good as folding

Re: NL Preflop Question
 

You are calling 80 to win 330 in implied odds and are over 30% against his range (actually, far over 30%, because AA and QQ are less likely). The times where you call with the best hand but he hits a 2 or 3 outer are roughly equivalent to the times he has the best hand vs. your top pair but you hit the 2 or 3 outer. Additionally, sometimes the flop will come something like QJT and you will not pay him off.

This is a call, and it's not all that close.

Re: NL Preflop Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
just a note as I see you're trying to do some math which is good. There are not 6 combinations of AA when you hold AQ, there are 3. Also 3 combos of QQ and 12 of AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

True! The funny thing is that I have seen such math before on this board and there the guy made the very same mistake.

I hope that the basic approach was correct at least. It is about implied odds and the likely outcome for the quiz is: Call [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If that is correct, then we learn from this that the short stack should have gone all-in pre-flop.

Re: Math shows folding is correct.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I've always been curious how one figures all this math out in the heat of the moment. I can understand putting people on hands and knowing if you are a favorite, but all the EV weighted calcs seem a lot harder to do a the table. Does one get better as situations repeat???? Do yo study common structured hand problems and as the closest ones come up say "oh that's that one" - fold
Someone enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think "all this math" is mostly useful for figuring out common situations away from the table, so you have some mathematical point of reference when making decisions at the table. I know that's how I treat these kinds of analysis.

Since poker is a game of incomplete information, most decisions come down to trying to determine what's going on in the hand and basically making an educated guess. Studying these kinds of hands is just one of the disciplines that helps you guess correctly more of the time.

Re: Math shows folding is correct.
 

doing the long math away from the table helps you get a feel for it and helps you guesstimate in 20 seconds or so.

Re: Math shows folding is correct.
 

Automuck.

Re: NL Preflop Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to your quesiton is obvious...

Do you see why?

Sigma

[/ QUOTE ]
no, why?

Re: NL Preflop Question
 

[quote
I hope that the basic approach was correct at least. It is about implied odds and the likely outcome for the quiz is: Call [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If that is correct, then we learn from this that the short stack should have gone all-in pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that would make AQ fold. If I am shortstacked and have a range of hands from AA-TT, AK, why would I want AQ to fold?

Re: NL Preflop Question
 

Why is this thread in this forum?