Is this analysis correct?
 

I'm on the button with wired 3's.

UTG limps, UTG+1 limps, MP limps, MP2 raises, I call, SB three bets, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, MP calls, MP2 calls, I call.

SB is uber:agg and I can see him making this play with a hand like J10 sooted. MP2 seems to be tight after six orbits or so.

Flop

A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]10 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

SB bets, BB raises, everyone calls except MP2, and I raise.

SB insta-4 bet's like he was clicking to either bet or raise in speed of light fashion.

BB calls the cap as does UTG, UTG+1, and MP, as do I.

Turn 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]


SB bets, BB calls, as do UTG, UTG+1 and MP

Now I'm confused. Does SB have AA like he's representing, and surely one of the players inbetween us has a flush, and if they dont, it's very likely they know how super-agg SB is and are calling with any ace. Maybe two of them have an ace??? Maybe one has a flush and is just planning on calling it down fearing aces full?

I decide that raising the turn is the best play anyways, because I'm going to get action from the SB regardless, and anyone who picked up a big flush draw or has a made flush isn'f folding for one more bet very often here, so I raise and get called by everyone except UTG.


River

10x

SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 bets, MP raises, and I ponder if capping here is really correct. If I do, I might very well lose the SB for 3 BB's, and I doubt seriously the BB calls four cold here, ever. If i call the three bet, maybe the SB just calls and it's unlikely that the BB calls three bets. Maybe UTG caps it if I just call assuming that I cap with a full house and his K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] is good, or maybe he has A 10 and caps anyways. I figure a cap here runs off business and I just call.



My river line here?????

Do you like it????



Tex

Re: Is this analysis correct?
 

I cap because I want to represent I have a Ten. The difference between 3-cold and 4-cold is irrelevant, surely. Nobody in a pot that big would fold for 4 but call for 3. Surely.

I have 2 questions.

Did you lose to quad Tens? And why do you have a star? (sadly I am familiar with a forum called OOT which I swore i would avoid as a timehole menace)

expanding e^x
 

Tex, here's an interesting mathematical fact:

e^x = 1 + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...

to infinity.

So let's say you want to figure out e^1. Ok, you can start adding up terms in the sequence to get closer and closer to the answer. First, you might figure out the first term:

1

that was easy. You're also still pretty far away from the answer. So you start trying to figure out the 2nd term:

x^2/2! = 1^2/2 = 1/2

ok, not as easy, but still not hard to calculate. Now we add those terms together and get 1.5. That's a lot closer to the answer, but we're not there yet. Now we add the 3rd term:

x^3/3! = 1^3/3*2 = 1/6

hmmm, that was more tricky, but we got the answer again. Adding to our running total...

1 + 1/2 + 1/6 = 1.6666...

ok, now we're even closer to the right answer, but still far away. So we tackle the next term

1/24

and then add in the next term

1/120

and the next

1/720

forever.

Eventually, we'll get to the right answer, which is about 2.72.

Now, you may notice that as we explore ever deeper terms in the sequence, they make less and less difference in the answer. If we want to figure out e^1, the place to start is with the high order terms, the ones at the beginning of the sequence. It makes no sense to look at the 630th term in the sequence unless we have the first 629 calculated, because knowing that term only gets us one trillionth of a part closer to the answer. For all practical purposes it makes no difference at all.


Do you see what I'm getting at? This question is like the 630th term in the calculation that determines your EV in poker, but we're all still working on term 22. Handling the case where you have the nuts in a big multiway pot only to run into a river that produces a possible better hand and you're getting huge multiway action on the river and you're trying to decide whether or not to cap or go for the overcalls.... it doesn't matter what you do. Figuring out the answer to this question only makes you the tiniest little iota better, it's so insignificant that the time lost thinking about it is worth more then any EV gained through understanding.


Here are a few things that you might think about instead:

- what percentage of hands must the CO raise before it's correct to 3-bet KQ on the button?

- If the button is known to bet every street when checked to no matter what he holds, can you defend with any 2? If so, how often can he check behind some big street before it becomes incorrect?

- What should the average raise pf % be for the table before it becomes correct to limp reraise w/ aces?


I'm sure you can come up with hundreds more if you put your mind to it.

good luck.
Eric

Re: Is this analysis correct?
 

I HAVE A * UNDER MY HANDLE BECAUSE ASTROGLIDE PM'D ME SAYING ONE OF MY POSTS IN OOT WASN'T GOOD.

I ASKED HIM WHY HE CARED, AND HE SAID HE WAS THE MOD, AND THAT IT'S HIS JOB TO MAKE SURE THE FORUM DOESNT SUCK.

I REPLIED (ALL OF THIS WAS VIA PM) THAT HE SHOULDNT TAKE HIS JOB SO SERIOUSLY.


THE POST WAS WHO WAS A BETTER CHILD CARTOON, CARTMAN FROM SOUTH PARK, BART SIMPSON, OR BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD. IT WA MEANT TO SETTLE AN OFFICE DISPUTE.

sorry for the caps, but this is RIDICULOUS.

I guess a * means I'm like in trouble or something?

Like when a teacher put your name on the chalkboard or something in grade school?


I didnt belittle him, i didnt curse at him, and I was saying that he shouldnt take his job so seriously in jest, which i later told him in a PM.


I PM'd mat and he told me to contact astroglide.

You know, this is stupid. I mean, really stupid.

I tell a mod in a PM not to take his job so seriously and he puts a * under my handle like it's a demerit or a detention or a warning or something.



all i can say is........LOFL.

Re: expanding e^x
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tex, here's an interesting mathematical fact:

e^x = 1 + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...

to infinity.

So let's say you want to figure out e^1. Ok, you can start adding up terms in the sequence to get closer and closer to the answer. First, you might figure out the first term:

1

that was easy. You're also still pretty far away from the answer. So you start trying to figure out the 2nd term:

x^2/2! = 1^2/2 = 1/2

ok, not as easy, but still not hard to calculate. Now we add those terms together and get 1.5. That's a lot closer to the answer, but we're not there yet. Now we add the 3rd term:

x^3/3! = 1^3/3*2 = 1/6

hmmm, that was more tricky, but we got the answer again. Adding to our running total...

1 + 1/2 + 1/6 = 1.6666...

ok, now we're even closer to the right answer, but still far away. So we tackle the next term

1/24

and then add in the next term

1/120

and the next

1/720

forever.

Eventually, we'll get to the right answer, which is about 2.72.

Now, you may notice that as we explore ever deeper terms in the sequence, they make less and less difference in the answer. If we want to figure out e^1, the place to start is with the high order terms, the ones at the beginning of the sequence. It makes no sense to look at the 630th term in the sequence unless we have the first 629 calculated, because knowing that term only gets us one trillionth of a part closer to the answer. For all practical purposes it makes no difference at all.


Do you see what I'm getting at? This question is like the 630th term in the calculation that determines your EV in poker, but we're all still working on term 22. Handling the case where you have the nuts in a big multiway pot only to run into a river that produces a possible better hand and you're getting huge multiway action on the river and you're trying to decide whether or not to cap or go for the overcalls.... it doesn't matter what you do. Figuring out the answer to this question only makes you the tiniest little iota better, it's so insignificant that the time lost thinking about it is worth more then any EV gained through understanding.


Here are a few things that you might think about instead:

- what percentage of hands must the CO raise before it's correct to 3-bet KQ on the button?

- If the button is known to bet every street when checked to no matter what he holds, can you defend with any 2? If so, how often can he check behind some big street before it becomes incorrect?

- What should the average raise pf % be for the table before it becomes correct to limp reraise w/ aces?


I'm sure you can come up with hundreds more if you put your mind to it.

good luck.
Eric


[/ QUOTE ]


erm....what?

j/k

Re: Is this analysis correct?
 

[ QUOTE ]
all i can say is........LOFL

[/ QUOTE ]

me too!

Re: expanding e^x
 

you miss 18.02

Re: Is this analysis correct?
 

care to elaborate?

you dont like one liners in your forum, so why give one here or in those pm's?

a little explanation so i could see your p.o.v. would be nice.

Re: Is this analysis correct?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I HAVE A * UNDER MY HANDLE BECAUSE ASTROGLIDE PM'D ME SAYING ONE OF MY POSTS IN OOT WASN'T GOOD.

I ASKED HIM WHY HE CARED, AND HE SAID HE WAS THE MOD, AND THAT IT'S HIS JOB TO MAKE SURE THE FORUM DOESNT SUCK.

I REPLIED (ALL OF THIS WAS VIA PM) THAT HE SHOULDNT TAKE HIS JOB SO SERIOUSLY.


THE POST WAS WHO WAS A BETTER CHILD CARTOON, CARTMAN FROM SOUTH PARK, BART SIMPSON, OR BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD. IT WA MEANT TO SETTLE AN OFFICE DISPUTE.

sorry for the caps, but this is RIDICULOUS.

I guess a * means I'm like in trouble or something?

Like when a teacher put your name on the chalkboard or something in grade school?


I didnt belittle him, i didnt curse at him, and I was saying that he shouldnt take his job so seriously in jest, which i later told him in a PM.


I PM'd mat and he told me to contact astroglide.

You know, this is stupid. I mean, really stupid.

I tell a mod in a PM not to take his job so seriously and he puts a * under my handle like it's a demerit or a detention or a warning or something.



all i can say is........LOFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

whoa dude, its just an internet forum about poker

Re: expanding e^x
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tex, here's an interesting mathematical fact:

e^x = 1 + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...



[/ QUOTE ]

*Nit alert*

Actually it's 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...

or x^0/0! + x^1/1! + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...

That said, good point, although there's quite a bit of irony in the presentation.