Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Folks,

Thanks for all the replies. I thought this was an interesting situation and thought it was much closer than it would seem it actually was.

The key point for me is the inconsistency of the EP's play. There just aren't enough hands he could have that make sense played the way he did. I think we probably are ahead something like 15-20% of the time at least. So folding really sucks (even though that's what I did, because I suck [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]).

EP turns over K4, MP turns over QQ, and MHWHBG.

The play still surprised me. My sense is that at 5/10, which is what I usually play, the river is much closer to a fold.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

Here's another hand I played in that same 2/4 session on Party.

An EP, MP, and LP limper enter, SB calls, and Deranged checks J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in the BB.

Flop (5 players, 5 SB): T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Deranged bets, EP player (unknown) calls, MP player (unknown player but probably not that good) calls, LP folds, SB folds.

Turn (3 players, 4 BB): K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Deranged bets, EP raises, MP calls, Deranged folds...


And I got screwed again. The river checked through, EP tabled 33, MP tabled AQ, and, again, MHWHBG.


I was just very interested to see these two hands in a short period of time, where opponents were raising inferior hands in odd places in multiway pots. I think this hand is a pretty easy fold, particularly as it'll take more than 1 BB on average to get to showdown and the pot was very small going into the turn.

It's certainly an observation I'm going to take to heart.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by duckman

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

Yes... he didn't have a set. He had a super-underpair. I corrected it.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another hand...

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the size of this pot, I think this is one of those hands that teaches you a lot about your opponents and you can live with the results...

And makes me think of the not-entirely-appropriate-but-appropriate-enough cliche: "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..."

I just realized -- didn't EP have a set? Doesn't he win the hand anyway? [NEVER MIND]

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another hand I played in that same 2/4 session on Party.

An EP, MP, and LP limper enter, SB calls, and Deranged checks J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in the BB.

Flop (5 players, 5 SB): T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Deranged bets, EP player (unknown) calls, MP player (unknown player but probably not that good) calls, LP folds, SB folds.

Turn (3 players, 4 BB): K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Deranged bets, EP raises, MP calls, Deranged folds...


And I got screwed again. The river checked through, EP tabled 33, MP tabled AQ, and, again, MHWHBG.


I was just very interested to see these two hands in a short period of time, where opponents were raising inferior hands in odd places in multiway pots. I think this hand is a pretty easy fold, particularly as it'll take more than 1 BB on average to get to showdown and the pot was very small going into the turn.

It's certainly an observation I'm going to take to heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because people at 2/4 are [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly what I meant, though I'm folding there without a read as well.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Well I guess this goes to show that in a big pot facing bizarre play, it's probably better to err on the side of calling. Like you said, a protected pot makes it less likely that an opponent is bluffing. However, very bizarre/confusing play makes it much more likely that an opponent is bluffing.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

The question in my mind and this goes to a previous Deranged and Jason_t post is whether laying down is ev postive here and if not whether laying down would be ev+ any higher limit. Do you get more of these moves in upper limits where players are more aware that you are aware of the protected pot? Anyone? Anyone?

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a tangent, but have people been in situations where a bluff can work against better players, because it is obviously protected?

Edit: This is mterry posting under a friend's account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just recently on Doyle's room 2/4.
I have Q5s in BB.
1 MP limper (a thinking player, but weak-tight), SB completes, I check
Flop TJQr
SB checks, I bet out, MP raises, SB folds, I call deciding that 2 pair (or a better top pair) is most likely for villian but call anyway because I think/hope I can take the pot away later
Turn K (a beautiful card for the hand I am going to represent)
HERO checks, villian bets, HERO CR's, villian folds.

I believed the villian would not fight over this small pot with only 4 apparent outs to a full-house and the implied threat that he's going to have to call another bet from me if he doesn't improve on the river. With that board it is more unlikely that either of us is bluffing, and my read on villian was such that he could do that reasoning and fold to my CR bluff.

Is that the protected pot theory in action on a bluff?

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Gregor, I think the theory is part of the reason bluff-raises work.