|
You guys might find this thread interesting...
|
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
How do you find the time for all the forums you're on? I have a hard enough time just keeping up with all the stuff on here.
Interesting thread, btw. Some good ideas to ponder. b |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
How do you find the time for all the forums you're on? I have a hard enough time just keeping up with all the stuff on here.
Hehe, ya. I've been foruming basically full-time for the last week or two in support of the book. That and I've got nothing better to do with my time. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
That and I've got nothing better to do with my time. [/ QUOTE ] um....You could always, oh, I don't know, Play Cards! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] How often do you get out to play now? Seems you played more when you had to drive for 2+hours than when you have it right in your backyard. Is it the lack of scratching and clawing to get to the cardroom that takes some of the zip out of it? Knowing that you fought that hard to get there that you're going to damn well make it worth your while? haha j/k [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Btw...do you happen to remember the title of the post where you bluffed the river with an unmade JT? It was quite awhile ago, it was at mucks if i remember it right, but it was a helluva move. I'd like to bookmark that hand/thread. Lady Marmalade to ya! b |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
Raising UTG with 22 is a little tougher to quantify. But remember that calling with 22 UTG is correct in many games, and when it is wrong, it isn't a big error (on the $0.05-$0.25 scale). So let's assume that calling is break-even... what is raising on top of that? Well, it is at most $2... [/ QUOTE ] Your statement here is wrong. It assumes that your mistake can only "cost" you when you lose. In this case, if you raise 22 and end up playing against only 2 opponents, it is very likely you will end up winning a smaller pot than if you had limped and got 4 or 5 opponents. So you find more "cost" to raising when you consider what you will make post flop when you hit your set. I'm not saying that raising 22 UTG is more than a $2 mistake in a 2-4 game, but it is wrong to say that it cannot be more than $2. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
I'm not saying that raising 22 UTG is more than a $2 mistake in a 2-4 game, but it is wrong to say that it cannot be more than $2.
I agree, you're correct. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
Btw...do you happen to remember the title of the post where you bluffed the river with an unmade JT?
I found it here. How often do you get out to play now? Well, I wasn't playing much at all while I was writing the book. I was just trying to get it out ASAP. Now I'm on vacation. I'll get back to playing once my vacation ends. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm happy with my free time. I'm catching up on some of the reading I should have been doing instead of wasting my time at the poker table. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, you're correct. [/ QUOTE ] So why did you say it then? Wait, I know why. Anybody dumb enough to frequent a poker forum other than 2+2 deserves to be misled. I like it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that raising 22 UTG is more than a $2 mistake in a 2-4 game, but it is wrong to say that it cannot be more than $2. [/ QUOTE ] If we're going to squeeze ourselves onto the head of the pin right next to all those angels, then strictly speaking, you can lose more than the original limp even with 72o - after all, you'll occasionally hit a flop (e.g. 2 pair) that keeps you in yet ultimately loses for you. I think Ed was on his way to accounting for all such quibbles when he postulated that making a preflop mistake with 72o "might get you into a situation where you make more mistakes and lose more... but the ORIGINAL mistake costs at most $2. Remember, you can always fold." This distinction between preflop and postflop costs would seem to become less useful the better your hole cards, since postflop involvement becomes more and more likely. Even so it don't we often think this way when considering the cost of a draw? E.g. with Kxs, if we flop a King our risk has jumped way up, but that wasn't what we had in mind when we limped it after many loose limpers - we were thinking that the majority of the time, our cost is limited to the initial limp if we play properly. Aside from that I found the offsite thread mildly interesting but mostly very basic. What this says to me is that like many studious but untalented hold'em players I have a much better handle on preflop play than on postflop play. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
Vacation?
heh heh. b oh, and thanks for the link. I bookmarked it. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
Randy,
TheDude is right. He is saying that you cannot evaluate the "Raising vs. Calling" mistake (from UTG) in quite the same way that you evaluate the "Calling vs. Folding" mistake. For the "Calling vs. Folding" mistake you CANNOT lose (on average) more than the cost of the call due to that error alone. It's mathematically impossible to have an expectation lower than the price of the call. In the "Raising vs. Calling" mistake, it's very unlikely to have an expectation differece between raising and calling bigger than the size of the raise... but it is POSSIBLE. Calling could be wildly profitable, and raising could chase out everyone who would have given you action if you had just called. So calling might possibly be +$3 and raising +$0. Now in reality, that's simply not the way poker works. If calling is worth $1, then raising will almost certainly not be worth less than -$1 (again, in our $2-$4 game). But I asserted that it is a certainty when it isn't. Now what is true is that raising can be no worse than two bets of expectation worse than folding. So if you KNOW that calling is break-even, then you can set a hard limit on the size of the raising error at -$4. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
Somebody slap me till I'm awake. I COMPLETELY misread his post.
|
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
So there are five loose limpers and you have ATs on the button. Against six random hands (assume the big blind comes along), ATs wins 23.5% of the time (from gocee.com). Your "share" is 1/7 or 14.3%. Thus, ATs wins approximately 23.5 - 14.3 = 9.2% "more than its share." Raising nets you 9.2% of all the post-raise action (in this case, one bet for each player, or seven bets), so failing to raise costs you about 0.092*7 = 0.644 bets or about $1.30 in our $2-$4 game. Now that's obviously just an estimate... real poker isn't played hot and cold. But that $1.30 number is WAY bigger than the numbers we got for the other errors, so we can conclude that failing to raise ATs in that spot is almost certainly a bigger error than the others. [/ QUOTE ] Your estimates are off by quite a bit here. 1st, you assume using random hands will be close enough, well I checked out my old pokertracker hands from 2-4 to get an idea of what hands we could safely eliminate these hands were 72o 84o KK AK etc. I then ran a simulation(5M hands) ATs vs random hands not including these hands and ATs only won 18% of the time and tied 3.4% (against all random hands I got 22.2% wins and 2.8% ties), so the actually % is closer to 19.7% not 23.5% 2nd, there is a 35% chance there will be a flop that you will not continue with so what % of the time you fold would you have actually won the hand? running simulations I got a rough estimate of 3% so 3% x 35% = 1% of your wins will happen when your hand is mucked. We are now down to 18.7% 3rd, Why are you including your bet when you calculate the value of the raise? I think it should've been 9.2% x 6 opponents 4th, there is that small possibility one of the early limpers has a monster and reraises, its insignificant so I wont include it. Anyway the actual amount you are losing by not raising in this situation is closer to 18.7% - 14.3% = 4.4%x6 = .264x2 = .528 .528 is quite a ways from 1.30 doesnt seem very important but if you made a mistake like this where the actual value is -.2 and you claim +.572 that would cost a few players a few cents. On top of all this you lose post flop because your ability to outplay your opponents is lost, its now difficult for a calling station to make a mistake. You also make it really difficult on yourself what if the flop comes 3h4hTc you have AsTs and someone bets a few callers do you call? raise? fold? turn is a Kc how do you continue? Whats the optimal way to play a game where every hand is capped and every player sees every flop? Is it to play every hand you win your fair share with? Im sure theres just a very small peice about this in your book if anything at all since its a situation you wont see too often, but I have a feeling your book will have quite a few flaws, this is lees oportunity I hope you 2 can debate some of these topics without it turning into this http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...art=1&vc=1 That said im looking forward to reading your book Ive never read a book specifically for small stakes/loose games before. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
1st, you assume using random hands will be close enough, well I checked out my old pokertracker hands from 2-4 to get an idea of what hands we could safely eliminate these hands were 72o 84o KK AK etc. I then ran a simulation(5M hands) ATs vs random hands not including these hands and ATs only won 18% of the time and tied 3.4% (against all random hands I got 22.2% wins and 2.8% ties), so the actually % is closer to 19.7% not 23.5%
I'm surprised the difference is so large, but I won't argue it since you are in a better position to get this number than I am. 2nd, there is a 35% chance there will be a flop that you will not continue with so what % of the time you fold would you have actually won the hand? running simulations I got a rough estimate of 3% so 3% x 35% = 1% of your wins will happen when your hand is mucked. We are now down to 18.7% This adjustment you can't make, however. That's because it will be correct for your opponents to fold as often (or more often) than you. Cutting the winning percentage of ATs without cutting that for your opponents makes your situation appear worse than it is. Your opponents won't fold when they should, you say? Well, that is, of course, to your benefit, not detriment. 3rd, Why are you including your bet when you calculate the value of the raise? I think it should've been 9.2% x 6 opponents The 7 is correct. I address this question in the original thread as well. If you prefer it this way, calculate EV = 0.197 * 7 - 1. 4th, there is that small possibility one of the early limpers has a monster and reraises, its insignificant so I wont include it. Good. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] So using your 19.7% number, we now get a $0.76 error. Failing to raise ATs is still clearly a bigger error than all three "call when you should fold" errors, but it is now closer to the folding AQ error. .528 is quite a ways from 1.30 doesnt seem very important but if you made a mistake like this where the actual value is -.2 and you claim +.572 that would cost a few players a few cents. By my own admission, I was making a very rough estimate. I wouldn't use this method of estimating if my margin of error were smaller. Im sure theres just a very small peice about this in your book if anything at all since its a situation you wont see too often, but I have a feeling your book will have quite a few flaws... If you find a flaw, please feel free to let me know. |
To be clear...
There certainly is an adjustment term for the way your preflop raise affects your postflop EV. But I do not accept your 3% term at all, for several reasons:
1. There is no way that I trust you to simulate how often you'd fold. That makes suppositions about how the hand will play, and you can't simulate those accurately at all. 2. You cannot simulate how the larger pot size will cause your opponents to change the way they will play. So I'm not saying that SOMETHING doesn't belong where your 3% term went, but I think it's as likely to be 3% as it is to be 0%. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
This adjustment you can't make, however. That's because it will be correct for your opponents to fold as often (or more often) than you. Cutting the winning percentage of ATs without cutting that for your opponents makes your situation appear worse than it is. [/ QUOTE ] You can assume that the audience of your book will make more folds post flop then the fish who limps in with any random hand. you would fold ATs on a 5h5Jh board the fish wont and based on the random hands your opponents could have there is about a 2-4% chance that hand will win when all the cards are out. Bringing it down 1% seems reasonable 0% doesnt [ QUOTE ] Your opponents won't fold when they should, you say? Well, that is, of course, to your benefit, not detriment. [/ QUOTE ] They wont fold whether you raise preflop or not so when you hit they'll pay you off no matter what you did preflop. I was being generous with my numbers the error is definately not 1.3 or .76 Cant say exactly what it would be, but its definately under .6 |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
This adjustment you can't make, however. That's because it will be correct for your opponents to fold as often (or more often) than you. Cutting the winning percentage of ATs without cutting that for your opponents makes your situation appear worse than it is. Your opponents won't fold when they should, you say? Well, that is, of course, to your benefit, not detriment. [/ QUOTE ] If I understand your point, I don't agree. Imagine that your opponents never fold postflop while you fold whenever it seems correct. That greatly reduces the probability of winning with (say) ATs and can easily make the preflop raise negative EV. Of course you are getting rich on the postflop play but that could have been achieved by just calling. Good players may not win their hot-and-cold fair share postflop in a large loose field precisely because they have the good sense to fold. This is an adjustment that needs to be considered when evaluating preflop raises of many limpers. Not easily done of course. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
If I understand your point, I don't agree.
Imagine that your opponents never fold postflop while you fold whenever it seems correct. That greatly reduces the probability of winning with (say) ATs and can easily make the preflop raise negative EV. Of course you are getting rich on the postflop play but that could have been achieved by just calling. That's not quite what I'm saying. Of course you are correct... but assuming that your opponents never fold, while you fold every time it is "correct" to do so is a silly assumption. That's just not the way poker is played. You can't introduce a "folding factor" and subtract it from your hot-and-cold winrate without thinking about how often other people will fold when they would have won. Furthermore, you are ignoring two other postflop effects: 1. With a hand like ATs, it's significantly more likely that your opponents should fold than you should. So even if your opponents play loosely postflop, they might be folding more than you simply because their hands are that much weaker than yours. 2. The size of the pot changes the frequency that your opponents will fold. Believe it or not, many player will fold in an unraised pot, but not in a raised pot. My objection is that this Flawed guy basically took the worst-case scenario (well, maybe not the worst, but he picked out anti-raising factors and ignored some pro-raising factors), plugged them into a "simulation" (god knows what went on under the covers of that), and told me that I was wrong. If you are going to run simulations and achieve results from them, I think you have an obligation to make some estimate as to the ERROR of your simulation. Error can come from several places: 1. The estimates that you used when you developed the sim. For example, Flawed says that he "looked at PokerTracker" and decided what hands people limped with and what they didn't limp with. That adjudication is a source of error. 2. Errors in the simulation software itself. If you are running hot-and-cold simulations, then if you coded them correctly, you should have no errors of this sort. But if you are running simulations where people bet, raise, and fold (i.e., TTH), then you get errors here... potentially very large errors if you aren't extremely careful. 3. Factors that you ignored. If you consider how often you have to fold, but you assume that your opponents never fold... well, that introduces a systematic error into your result. These errors can REALLY add up to a sim. In fact, I bet that most people who run sims (I don't know anything about Flawed, so I can't say this about him one way or the other) get results that are essentially meaningless. They don't understand poker well enough OR their software well enough to reduce and adjust for the errors. They just set something up, tell it to run a million hands, and read off the results as if they are gospel. If you are going to run sims and get real results that you are going to argue about, you have an obligation to estimate the error of your results. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
Ed, as an interesting aside, I played in a live 3-6 game the other day where it was very possible that raising 22 UTG was correct! It was borderline, but the game was juicy, to say the least.
What I mean to say is, it is usually only a small mistake to raise w/ 22 UTG in most 2-4 games. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
The win % of Gocee includes the split pots.
"Each entry in the following table is the result of 1,000,000 simulated hands of hold 'em played to the showdown and represents the percentage of pots won (including partial pots in the case of splits) by the indicated hand against the indicated number of opponents holding random hands." How should that affect the way we use those numbers when calculating pre-flop differences? Lowering the win % with a certain percentage? I doubt we should lower it to the exact amount, since being the pre-flop aggressor sometimes might make a split hand fold. Although I doubt it would be a correct fold given the pot size and stuff like that. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
What I mean to say is, it is usually only a small mistake to raise w/ 22 UTG in most 2-4 games.
I definitely agree with that. This was really the point of my example... that failing to raise ATs is a major error (as is folding AQ), and the "giving extra action" errors I listed were all much smaller in magnitude (if errors at all... notice in the column I didn't label them "errors," I labelled them "plays"... at least I think I did.. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). My post where I estimated EVs was just intended to give people who are brand new to thinking about poker this way a quick "back of the envelope" introduction to estimating this kind of stuff. That's why I used three different methods to estimate (random hands, pokerroom.com data, and capping losses). Yes, some will misapply these techniques, but I still think they should be exposed to them. People light up when they hear for the first time about raising because you'll win more than your share. Many of these people think raising is for "getting the garbage out" or other stuff... and those reasons never quite rang true for them because... well, because they are mostly nonsense. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Also, I don't want people to get too lost in the numbers. The actually numbers are VERY hard to nail down because there are so many variables. But thankfully you don't have to nail the numbers down to get most poker decisions correct. A little logic and intuition will get you to the right place often enough to smash any small or medium stakes game. This is another reason I'm not a huge proponent of running sims. 5% of the effort will get you 90%+ of the answers. And the answers it won't get you are close in nature anyway. Yet most people are still struggling with that first 90%. So the large majority of poker players have little need for sims... because they still need to learn how to get what they can just by thinking things through. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
1. With a hand like ATs, it's significantly more likely that your opponents should fold than you should. So even if your opponents play loosely postflop, they might be folding more than you simply because their hands are that much weaker than yours. [/ QUOTE ] The difference is the hands your folding have a chance to win while their hands do not if they did have the slightest chance they would call. To a bad player getting 8-1 and 15-1 is nothing they'll see a big pot and call with almost anything. To say bad players will play just like the solid players post flop is wrong and must be factored in. Sure my sims wont be 100% accurate, but they will be more accurate than just assumptions that leave out many variables. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
[ QUOTE ]
Sure my sims wont be 100% accurate, but they will be more accurate than just assumptions that leave out many variables. [/ QUOTE ] Or not. The problem with many simulations is that there is no way to determine whether they have been biased by playing rules that don't reflect the game being simulated. It's not that the answers are necessarily wrong, it's that there is no way to assess there validity. Simulations like TTH are at their best when used to compare different hands. The simulation may be biased in assessing the value of (say) A8o, but it is likely to apply a similar bias to A7o because the same playing rules are used. You may not get an accurate idea of how good A8o is, but you can see how much better it is than A7o. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
There is no bias when u just take hands down to the showdown
and in the second situation where I got my 1% I just used sims to get a better estimate I used every resource I had available Ed just assumed it was 0% his first assumption (using 23.5%) was off by quite a bit so why wouldnt this one be? Lets forget about the numbers for a sec its difficult to determine whose estimates are closer and really irrelevant since we both say raising would be correct for ATs. The point is hes giving advice based on a few assumptions and is not explaining the hand very well. Lets use A8s for example again he says in this situation it would be profitable to raise and thats all he says. He fails to mention how you play post flop has a direct result on how profitable it is to raise. lets say ed says not raising A8s is a 20 cent mistake (he never mentions how much it is exactly). So a new player starts raising A8s all the time in this situation but this new player is a really tight post flop player and because of ed thinks raising A8s is profitable not realizing because of his tightness it is actually costing him money. In my opinion Ed is giving bad advice unless hes willing to explain how to continue with the hand. [ QUOTE ] Finally, your question about "how low do you go" with the suited aces? Well, this is, to some extent, a guess... but I generally raise limpers on the button with A8s... sometimes with A7s... and usually not with A6s or lower. A7s-A4s are relatively close in value... the wheel power of the weaker hands makes up somewhat for the lack of strength... so A7s and A5s are about equal and A6s and A4s are about equal. A3s and A2s are weaker, and A8s is definitely stronger. So that's about where I stick the line, A8s/A7s. [/ QUOTE ] Again its just my estimates vs Eds (im sure most would go with ed over a nobody) but raising A7s in this situation is a mistake, KQs KJs and a few suited connectors are all better off. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
Again its just my estimates vs Eds (im sure most would go with ed over a nobody) but raising A7s in this situation is a mistake, KQs KJs and a few suited connectors are all better off.
This is the way I draw lines at hands like A8s. I say, "Well, ATs is an easy raise, and A7s is probably not a raise. So how about A9s and A8s? Well, they are close, but my guess is that raising is usually somewhat better." I don't claim to be able to nail down a number, and if someone came with COMPELLING data (from a sim or real data) that suggested that I was wrong, then I'd simply accept that my estimate was wrong. What I do claim is that, if raising A8s is an error, it's most certainly not a big one. So if you follow my guidelines for limping/raising, you will usually make the correct choice, and furthermore, when you do make an error, it will almost always be a pretty small one. That is good enough for 99+% of all poker players. Remember, I'm trying to teach people to beat loose games. To do that, learning postflop play and concepts is WAY more important than deciding whether raising A8s on the button with three limpers makes you five cents or costs you five cents. So I intentionally deemphasize debates like this one. I think it gets people thinking about the wrong things as far as improving their play is concerned. |
Re: You guys might find this thread interesting...
Just wanted to say thanks for this discussion. It's convinced me to buy your book -- this is good stuff.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.