Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

We do have some implied odds for hitting an A (very good chance we're up against AQ/AJ), but they aren't fantastic. We chop with AK here a ton, and while we won't be up against AA/KK that often when we flop an A or K, we'll pay it off a lot when it does happen.

Neither of those factors outweighs what we'll make vs. AQ/AJ though, since we're much more likely to be against these hands than AA/KK/AK. However, it's enough to show that our implied odds, while good, aren't that good.

Equity disadvantage + being OOP gives a strong case for folding. If we're going to continue with the hand, I like calling for the reasons outlined by SW, especially disguising our hands. By calling, I think our implied odds go up tremendously when we flop an A or K. Villains with these stats will notice and respect a cold-capper that comes out firing with an A or K on the board. They won't respect us to the same extent if we just call.

I say calling > capping, but I'm not smart enough to know if folding or calling is better.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tom sed: I like a call. Your getting 3:1 to call assumming the raiser calls and the BB folds. If the BB comes along, your getting almost 4:1.
[ QUOTE ]
Fun hand. Tom, what are you doing if the raiser elects to cap? Do you call another bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Mike,
If I knew it was going to get capped I wouldn't make the first call, because getting capped often means we're against AA or KK and we could be screwed if we get the flop we were hoping for. However, I'd call the last small bet because now we're getting 12:1 and 16:1 if the BB came along (he's not going to fold for one more either.) The capper could also have QQ, sometimes will have some suited connecter and occassionaly will just cap because he's gone goofy. I'd just play it more conservatively if we connect and would be wary if anyone, but especially the capper, was playing an A or K on the board strongly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did consider the QQ. He may feel like he needs to get his bets in against potentially AK while he's still ahead. IIRC, an A or K flops against his QQ 43% of the time.

Now as far as knowing you would fold if you knew it was going to be capped, i think that's where my decision was decided. Several people on here seems to absolutely hate folding Ak here. Looking at their stats, and analyzing just the open raise and reraise, i believe that not considering folding here is akin to overvaluing AKo OOP.

I am definitely not an expert on minimizing losses, but it's not like this is unfair to you that you got AKo and you're behind. Sometimes you are BEATEN. IMO, the best way to deal with that is to muck the hand.

I appreciate your follow up Tom, and had i been trapped in the hand i would have easily called the capping bet as well, but i'd be living with the fact that i just trapped myself in a hand i'm likely dominated in.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

Good post. One question:

[ QUOTE ]
but it doesn't change my basic point that QQ is not making money off of AK's flop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that QQ would rather AK fold then call. But isn't QQ still making money off of AK's flop call? Isn't this why he should bet instead of check? My understanding was that AK was losing money on this particular street even though his call is +EV. It is +EV because of the pot size but QQ is who is making the money on the flop. Is my thinking misguided?

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. One question:

[ QUOTE ]
but it doesn't change my basic point that QQ is not making money off of AK's flop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that QQ would rather AK fold then call. But isn't QQ still making money off of AK's flop call? Isn't this why he should bet instead of check? My understanding was that AK was losing money on this particular street even though his call is +EV. It is +EV because of the pot size but QQ is who is making the money on the flop. Is my thinking misguided?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are not misguided. As so often happens this is a matter of perspective.

We are currently at preflop considering the pot equity and implied equity available to QQ versus our AK. He has roughly a 2/3 chance of flopping the best hand. So in a sense 2/3 of the current pot belongs to him and 1/3 belongs to us. That is his pot equity. Implied equity reflect the fact that the flop doesn't end the hand. Whoever gets the worse flop can pay to draw cards. When I say that AK has favorable implied odds I mean that on average these extra bets and cards favor us. We can make +EV peels and whittle away at his 2/3 pot equity when we are behind. When we are ahead he can only lose more money by paying to draw to two outs.

Furthermore there is also the possibility of making Sklansky mistakes postflop. QQ will usually make the terrible mistake of paying for a showdown on an Axx/Kxx flop. The mistakes made by AK on an xxx flop are generally much less serious because we have outs and a better idea that our hand is no good. The difference between Sklansky-correct play postflop and the way it will actually be played is another source of implied odds for AK.

Once we are at the flop our perspective switches. Betting an xxx flop with QQ and being called by AK is more profitable than the only alternative of giving a freecard. But QQ is still losing money compared to the impossible alternative of ending play and scooping up the pot. QQ has the best hand, but his EV is less than the amount of money currently in the pot.

PS: You may have noticed that in my posts in this thread I have discussed the value of possible flops and how the hand might continue. I have not mentioned the roughly 57% hot-and-cold probability of QQ finishing with the best 7-card hand versus AKo. This is because that is not how the game is played and it doesn't matter. The reality is that AK has a worse than 43% chance versus QQ because it folds more hands that it could have won. But it also has favorable implied odds for the converse reason: QQ invests more money in hands that it eventually loses. This is characteristic of battles between pocket pairs and overcards.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

I always cap AK no matter what.. maybe a leak.. if so, it must be a really small one..

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
The preflop idea behind calling is to make a lot of money in cases 1 and 2 and otherwise write our preflop investment off. That it may actually be possible to make a small profit off of some bad flops by calling is something I'll worry about when it comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stellar,

This is actually what I'm having trouble understanding. I know that when we put money in a pot early in a -EV situation in order to have correct odds later it's called "bloating". When we put money in early in a +EV situation it's just +EV (so that's a good thing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) What is it called when we put money in at EV neutral? Don't those anticipated 'correct odds' calls turn the neutral into a negative? I was always under the impression that they do.

According to stove, we're just about EV neutral preflop against their ranges and having $2 invested. We're also OOP and need to make it to the river. Fit or fold isn't correct here because we will often have good enough odds to continue past the flop and sometimes the turn, but they are only correct at the time presented (flop or turn bet). That has to be included in the preflop calculations in order to determine our SD equity, no? What am I missing?


I saw a thread about this around 3 months ago. The example gave two EV neutral hands preflop and excluded blinds (like 55 vs 87s or something like that). Theoretically, there's no difference whether they go 1 bet or 100000 bets preflop because it's EV neutral. However, at 1 bet, 87s doesn't have correct odds to call to the river when it misses postflop, but at 100000 bets it does. The postflop calls had to be considered in the preflop action in order to complete the equation correctly. When calling 3 bets with AKo, we're putting ourselves in that same type of situation where we'll be obligated to call those later bets (at correct odds) a certain %age of the time.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

I think this is fuzzy logic. Your comparing preflop EV in an all in situation vs 3-more streets of betting and strategy. You only calculate the EV of the situation at hand, which Stellar did a find job with.

i.e., 55 vs. 87s (50/50 for simplicity's sake), it doesn't matter if it goes 1 bet or 10K bets preflop if and only if betting stops after that round and they see all 5 cards. If you know there is going to be multiple betting rounds, then you can't just blankly say "I'm 50 50 to win this hand." You have to consider how the hand might play out and what factors are involved in computing your preflop EV and whether your investment will show a return.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]

i.e., 55 vs. 87s (50/50 for simplicity's sake), it doesn't matter if it goes 1 bet or 10K bets preflop if and only if betting stops after that round and they see all 5 cards. If you know there is going to be multiple betting rounds, then you can't just blankly say "I'm 50 50 to win this hand." You have to consider how the hand might play out and what factors are involved in computing your preflop EV and whether your investment will show a return.

[/ QUOTE ]

It assumes that you are going to showdown everytime. So you can comfortably call down your 55 vs 87s and know that you are (55%/45% HU) getting 10% on your money. And if you can fold during those times that you are positive that you are behind than now you are increasing your return.

Right?

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

Well, yeah.. that makes sense, but I was talking more from 87s position. i.e., say there's no blinds, it's heads up, and 55 "opens" for 1 bet. 87s can't simply say "I'm calling this bet cuz it's 50/50" if he has to fold ~60% of the flops to a bet because he totally missed and now he's a bigger dog and doesn't have correct odds. However, if it's just preflop and then it's an all in situation, then sure, it doesn't matter if it's going 1 bet or 10 jillion.

SW explained nicely the overcards vs. pairs battle.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

The (expected) value of a hand is the amount of money you will make off the hand averaged over all possible outcomes. This is how much money you should receive if someone walks up and offers to buy your hand at some point during the play.

A very important property of hand value is that it can never be negative. You always have the option of folding and folding has value zero.

The expected value of a preflop call is the average value of the hand after all possible flops. This will include great flops that have a lot of value and terrible flops that have almost no value. There is no such thing as a flop that has negative value. Actually flops cannot have zero value either because it's possible that no one will ever bet and you will eventually win at showdown without risking any money. But many flops are bad enough that they can be considered zero for practical preflop purposes.

A preflop call is +EV if the expected value of the call is greater than the cost of calling. I've neglected the possibility of further preflop raises, possible overcalls and overfolds behind you, and also the possibility that raising yourself might be an even better play, but if you understand the concepts you should be able to adjust for these issues.

Now it may happen (e.g. AK vs QQ analysis) that there are many bad flops where checkfolding has zero EV but chasing is better because it has a miniscule EV of say +0.05 BB. That means chasing is correct. It also means that you will frequently lose a lot of money on the hand and your variance will increase. But from a preflop perspective it's still one possible flop that might be +0.05 BB or just plain zero. The effect on your preflop EV is utterly insignificant.

This whole idea you read of bad preflop actions sucking in money through the whole hand is just a myth perpetrated by the mathematically ignorant. No one is forcing you to make negative EV plays postflop.

Hmmm, that was harsh. A more understanding statement would be that it reflects the reality that for inexperienced or weak players certain hands do have a trapping effect. These players make serious mistakes chasing unplayable flops and lose money postflop. What the authors really mean is that a beginner should fold marginal hands that are profitable for good players because they will be unprofitable for the beginner.

So actually a flop could have negative EV in the sense that although folding is the correct play, Hero is not good enough to make that play. But I would never compute the EV of a preflop play based on the assumption that a particular flop had negative EV, because if I thought that then I would realize that I should fold that flop and my EV would stop being negative.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
UTG is 20/12/2.8 after 1500 hands.
CO is 26/16/2.1 after 4300 hands.

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) pokerhand.org hand converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">CO 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero folds.

Anyone have a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

If UTG had a pfr of 16, and the three better had a pfr of 12- then i have folded in this situation. Otherwise i think its a playble hand. It will def require some skill postflop though.

Haven't i seen you at 10/20 our house?

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

I found the link:

Here

The situation was different (on the flop instead of preflop and pumping instead of calling), but the concept is still the same. The posters in this thread weren't no-name n00bs and there's much validity to the myth you spoke about. Tstone said it best, followed by vkh's 2nd post.

What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive. Implied odds and reverse implied odds, however, are not affected. This concept shows that it's possible to have a miniscule EV edge and, at the same time, also possible that adding money will turn that small edge into a small deficit. I believe this is only the case for (non all-in) situations when there is street by street betting and only affects hands (like AK vs. a PP) that need to improve to win.

EDIT: Stellar, thanks for the above screen name edit. Good looking out. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still doesn't affect the EV neutrality of the situation, though. If you put in a lot of bets in an EV neutral situation (a TRUE EV neutral situation.. I'm ignoring the effect of representing more strength which may make your opponent make a fold where he should continue), you're not going to make more money in the long run because you've bloated the pot and can afford to chase.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still doesn't affect the EV neutrality of the situation, though. If you put in a lot of bets in an EV neutral situation (a TRUE EV neutral situation.. I'm ignoring the effect of representing more strength which may make your opponent make a fold where he should continue), you're not going to make more money in the long run because you've bloated the pot and can afford to chase.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think my above quote poorly explained what I was trying to say. There are correct folds somewhere in there. If the pot is too big, we can't make those correct folds anymore, but they still exist. So, a certain %age of the "correct" call is -EV because of the excessive action on earlier streets. My statement should have read:

"What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets appear positive when they shouldn't be."

I'm pretty sure we're agreeing.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

CAP! (Although I like the argument for call) Then promptly go find a better table..

Results
 

As everyone knows, I folded like a sissy. Knowing their hands, the fold was good.

UTG capped and also had AKo. CO had 66 (believe it or not).

Flop came Qxx, turn x, river A. UTG won and, assuming I made it to the river, my hand was good for 1/2.

Re: Results
 

Further evidence that the PFR stat is somewhat overrated. For one, it doesn't account for 3-betting standards, because some 20 PFR guys will open with KJo and 3-bet anyone with it, some will tighten up considerably. For two, it doesn't mean they only raise top hands.

The fact that CO is 3-betting as low as 66 against an UTG raise makes your fold pretty crappy.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive.

[/ QUOTE ]
The kurosh example is deceptive because the flop action is *not* EV neutral.

That thread floated all over the place, so let me recap some assumptions:

1. Preflop pot of 3 SB.

2. Hero has a draw with a 1/3 chance of completing by the river.

3. Hero has no fold equity with an unmade hand. He will always have two opponents unless he makes his hand.

4. Hero cannot collect any bets after he completes his draw.

5. Hero will be wringered on the turn and have to pay 4 BB to see the river. I added this assumption to clarify my point.

6. There is no cap on the flop.

Argument:

Each flop bet gives 2-1 odds and has a 1/3 chance of winning, therefore it is EV neutral (zero EV). Except for variance it would appear that it doesn't matter how many bets go in on the flop. The curious thing is that if no money goes in on the flop then Hero will not have pot odds to call the turn (1/5 chance to win), but if many bets go in on the flop the pot will become bloated and calling four bets on the turn becomes correct.

Paradox:

The "neutral EV" flop bets changed the EV mathematics of the whole hand.

Resolution:

Limit hold'em players are so accustomed to never folding flush draws that they accepted the "2-1 bet odds and 1/3 chance to complete draw means neutral EV" spiel without question. But it's wrong and if I redid the example with a big table full of callers and a gutshot people would see it immediately. We all know you can't count on two pulls at a gutshot. The odds on turning the flush draw are only about 4-1 and the 2-1 bets on the flop are clearly negative EV.

Only when the pot becomes sufficiently large that Hero is river committed do the well-known flop 2-1 bet odds come into play.

A similar effect occurs with gutshots. If I drop Ed Miller's famous $1000000 into the pot preflop, then I can start value-betting the flop at roughly 5-1 odds with a nut gutshot because I'm guarenteed to see two cards.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

Stellar,

You deserve to be commended, as you did a phenominal job throughout this whole thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The "neutral EV" flop bets changed the EV mathematics of the whole hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important concept. There is a standard argument that money you put in the pot belongs to the pot and is no longer yours. This argument is usually brought up when evaluating correct "chasing" odds. At the time of the decision (flop, turn, river, etc.) the argument is valid. The money in the pot doesn't belong to you and therefore the pot is already bloated. However, there are certain preventive measures that can be taken at the "time of bloating" which will allow us to make correct folds when we're supposed to (Kurosh's thread illustrated this idea).

In the current hand, I believe capping preflop with AKo will give us correct odds to call on the turn fairly often....and won't allow us the opportunity to make the right fold in that spot, as exemplified in Kurosh's thread. Just calling preflop may or may not do this and for that reason, I believe calling to be a better option than capping.

There's one other thing from Kurosh's thread that can redefine the way we look at decisions. Bloating to give correct odds for a later call is bad when we're currently -EV. As the thread pointed out, there are situations where pumping the pot can hurt us when we're currently "EV neutral". Using that line of logic, there have to be situations where pumping can be a detrement EVEN IF WE'RE SLIGHTLY +EV!! This can happen any time the value we get by pumping is less than the value we lose by not being able to make a correct laydown. It's a VERY interesting concept.

All of this is separate from implied odds or reverse implied odds. Kurosh completely removed those from his example and the paradox still existed. The way we assess EV on any given street has to include the (-EV now, +EV later) possiblity of future calls when we don't currently have the winning poker hand.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

Here is an example that I made up a long time ago in a preflop EV thread.

You are playing heads up hold'em but the deal is rigged. One of you will flop TPTK. The other player will receive a standard gutshot. It is completely random as to who will receive what.

Scenario 1: Both players are perceptive and skillful and will play FTOP-correctly postflop. Whoever gets TPTK will bet and his opponent will compute pot odds and act accordingly. There are no implied odds because no one ever chases a made straight. There are no redraws to full houses.

Analyze the preflop play.

Scenario 2: Exactly like scenario 1 except that Villain has a bit of gamble. He will always peel one card to try and make his straight. Other than this he plays properly.

Analyze the preflop play.

I'll post again later after you've had some time to absorb this. This example has great significance when a good player is considering raising the field for value with some mediocre hand like QJs that has a small PokerStove edge over the marching nitwits. Specifically I am thinking of opponents who only play their cards and don't consider pot size or what hand the PFR is representing.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

I still don't fully understand the concepts in my old thread. There is a lot more to it than what is there. It has a lot of implications on PF play. I wish Sklansky had touched on this so I wouldn't have to figure it out piece by piece over time.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Scenario 1: Both players are perceptive and skillful and will play FTOP-correctly postflop. Whoever gets TPTK will bet and his opponent will compute pot odds and act accordingly. There are no implied odds because no one ever chases a made straight. There are no redraws to full houses.

Analyze the preflop play.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused. I guess we're assuming that we can't tell anything from the cards we're dealt? What I mean is if we're dealt 32 preflop, we know we're the one who will flop the gutshot because 32 could never be TPTK.

If we're not allowed to see our cards until after the flop, then it doesn't matter because this would be a complete coin toss every time.

[ QUOTE ]
Scenario 2: Exactly like scenario 1 except that Villain has a bit of gamble. He will always peel one card to try and make his straight. Other than this he plays properly.

Analyze the preflop play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the same deal (we can't see the cards preflop):

The idea here is to keep the pot as small as possible at either 0 or 1 bets. In other words, we check or we call. This allows our "gambling" opponent to make the biggest mistake on the flop by peeling when he has the gutter.


EDIT: Hopefully, I understood the question correctly.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused. I guess we're assuming that we can't tell anything from the cards we're dealt?

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, you cannot predict who will flop TPTK based on your preflop cards. Assume you cannot see your hand preflop.

[ QUOTE ]
If we're not allowed to see our cards until after the flop, then it doesn't matter because this would be a complete coin toss every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. These are straight even bets on a 50-50 chance. They have zero EV. Bet and raise if you enjoy gambling.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea here is to keep the pot as small as possible at either 0 or 1 bets. In other words, we check or we call. This allows our "gambling" opponent to make the biggest mistake on the flop by peeling when he has the gutter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose Villain bets preflop. You can call this bet or you can raise in which case assume Villain will call.

Thus the preflop pot can be 2 SB or 4 SB at your option. The preflop raise carries zero EV.

Now consider the postflop play. A gutshot should be folded on the flop irrespective of whether the pot is 2 SB or 4 SB. Hero will play the hand exactly the same postflop regardless of what he did preflop. For his own reasons Villain will also play the hand exactly the same postflop.

Since the postflop action will be identical in every respect, it follows that the preflop action cannot change the winner of the pot nor the amount of postflop bets won by the winner. We also noted above that the preflop raise has zero EV.

So why do you think it is more profitable not to raise preflop? If the bigger Sklansky mistake means you make more money, then where is the extra money coming from? It's not preflop and it's not postflop either.

There is a way out of this apparent paradox. The Fundamental Theorem is not wrong.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

I'll give it a shot. [please check my EV here, as I’m still learning how to do the specific math]

I'm assuming small blind is the button since we're headsup. The odds of hitting a gutshot are 11-1, or 8.5%. We’ll need a pot that 9.75 sb in size to correctly call without implied odds.
---------

Lets say Wolverine holds AKo in the bb, and Magneto holds JQo in the sb, and both play correctly. The flop will come down KT8.

1)Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, Magneto caps with position, Wolverine calls. This makes the pot 8sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is getting 9-1 to call and chase his gutshot to the turn (with an implied turn lead from Wolverine to make it 10-1). He folds needing 11-1.

2)Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, and Magneto just calls. Now the pot is 6sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is now getting just 7-1 with an implied 8-1 on his gutshot. Magneto folds.

3)Magneto raises on a steal and Wolverine just calls for deception. The pot is 4sb on the flop, and Magneto autofolds to Wolverine’s autobet.

4)Magneto calls and Wolverine checks. The pot is 2sb on the flop, and Magneto autofolds to Wolverine’s autobet.

------------
Now let’s have Magneto peel the flop.
-----------
1) Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, Magneto caps with position, Wolverine calls. This makes the pot 8sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is getting 10-1 to call and chase his gutshot to the turn. He has to catch on the turn, since if he misses he'll have to fold to Wolverine's turn bet. EV on this call [10sb * 8.5% = 0.85sb]. This means that Magneto is losing 0.15sb on this call, and will have to make up 0.75 sb to break even.

2) Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, and Magneto just calls. Now the pot is 6sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is now getting just 8-1 when he calls with the worst of it. [8sb * 8.5% = 0.68 sb] This means that Magneto is losing 0.32 sb with his flop call, and he’ll have to make up 2.75 bets when he connects in order to break even.

3) Magneto raises on a steal and Wolverine just calls for deception. The pot is 4sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is getting 6-1 when he calls. The EV of this call is [6sb * 8.5% = 0.51] meaning that Magneto is losing 049sb when he calls, and he’ll have to make up 4.75 small bets in order to break even!

4) Magneto calls and Wolverine checks. The pot is 2sb on the flop. When Magneto calls, he’ll be getting 4-1 on his call. [4sb * 8.5% = 0.34sb]. This means that Magneto is losing 0.66 of a small bet on this pot, and will have to make up 6.75 small bets before he breaks even.

-------------
Here’s what I get from this:

1)Magneto is never getting correct immediate odds to call on the flop with a four bet cap. Only occasionally does he have correct implied odds.

2)The times that Magneto can call semi profitably on the flop, he has to fold on the turn when he misses. This will occur 91.5% of the time.

3)JQ doesn’t hold up well vs AK.

4)Magneto’s best move is to limp the sb then fold the flop.

5)Magneto’s worst move is limp the sb, then call the flop.

I think my math is close, but I’d appreciate appropriate beratement and correction.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

hi stellar,

does it have to do with the idea that all of the PF equity is not realized because the chaser does not get to see all 5 cards?

edit: or is it something to do with not knowing if we'll flop tptk or the gutshot when we raise pf?

or does it have to do with a donation of .5 bb that i make when the gutshot hits post?

this paradox is really confusing me and it disturbs me how uncomfortable i am thinking out this bit of theory. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

It looks like I misunderstood your premise a little there Stellar. I'll take another whack.

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose Villain bets preflop. You can call this bet or you can raise in which case assume Villain will call.

Thus the preflop pot can be 2 SB or 4 SB at your option. The preflop raise carries zero EV.

Now consider the postflop play. A gutshot should be folded on the flop irrespective of whether the pot is 2 SB or 4 SB. Hero will play the hand exactly the same postflop regardless of what he did preflop. For his own reasons Villain will also play the hand exactly the same postflop.

Since the postflop action will be identical in every respect, it follows that the preflop action cannot change the winner of the pot nor the amount of postflop bets won by the winner. We also noted above that the preflop raise has zero EV.

So why do you think it is more profitable not to raise preflop? If the bigger Sklansky mistake means you make more money, then where is the extra money coming from? It's not preflop and it's not postflop either.

There is a way out of this apparent paradox. The Fundamental Theorem is not wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there is no edge one way or the other when both players consider the odds. regardless of the size of the pot, the one who flops top kicker will automatically take down the pot uncontested.

With the gambler, the edge has to come from position, but only because this hand will be won on the turn every time.

I think a critical question is, what will top pair do on the turn those times that the gutshot connects?

will he recognize the straight board and opt to check/fold?
will he bet if he is checked to?
will a made gutshot lead every turn?
if a made gutshot checkraises, will the top pair pay him off?

I can’t figure this one without accounting for the turn here.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

--also, I made an assumption on the position of the button and the blind structure. Having the BB become the dealer seems like it would be significant.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

I like calling here. I don't think we have to be up against AA or KK here. I see people with these stats raising utg w/AJ, and co reraising with AQ, AK, TT, 99 etc. Perhaps calling in this situation is an error, but not much of one.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a way out of this apparent paradox. The Fundamental Theorem is not wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see much of a paradox in this example. It's fairly simple:

The only place we make money is from his flop call when he's the one with the gutshot. But, we don't make ALL of his flop call, because sometimes he will complete his gutshot allowing him a discount on his loss. The smaller the pot is at that point, the smaller the discount he gets. When he makes less the times he hits, we make more.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an example that I made up a long time ago in a preflop EV thread.

You are playing heads up hold'em but the deal is rigged. One of you will flop TPTK. The other player will receive a standard gutshot. It is completely random as to who will receive what.

Scenario 1: Both players are perceptive and skillful and will play FTOP-correctly postflop. Whoever gets TPTK will bet and his opponent will compute pot odds and act accordingly. There are no implied odds because no one ever chases a made straight. There are no redraws to full houses.

Analyze the preflop play.

Scenario 2: Exactly like scenario 1 except that Villain has a bit of gamble. He will always peel one card to try and make his straight. Other than this he plays properly.

Analyze the preflop play.

I'll post again later after you've had some time to absorb this. This example has great significance when a good player is considering raising the field for value with some mediocre hand like QJs that has a small PokerStove edge over the marching nitwits. Specifically I am thinking of opponents who only play their cards and don't consider pot size or what hand the PFR is representing.

[/ QUOTE ]
First let me emphasize that this constructed problem is face-up poker postflop because I specified FTOP (Sklansky) correct postflop play. Whoever is losing will check and whoever is winning will bet.

If both players play correctly postflop then neither can possibly have an advantage in this symmetrical situation. Any extra bets preflop are even money on a 50% chance and thus zero EV.

When playing versus the gambler you have a substantial advantage thanks to his incorrect flop calls.

The first thing to realize is that if you each player made a very large ante the gambler would be playing correctly by drawing to his gutshot and your advantage would completely disappear.

So obviously it is to your advantage to keep the preflop pot small. But how can we reconcile this with the facts that the preflop betting is zero-EV while the postflop betting is unchanged by the preflop action?

The postflop part of the explanation is quite correct. The money lost in the postflop betting is independent of pot size.

However the preflop bets are not zero EV. The preflop odds of winning the pot are not something that comes out of PokerStove. Your chance of winning the pot is based on a combination of cards and players. You will be winning the pot less than 50% of the time because you fold gutshots and he doesn't. You are getting 1-1 odds on your preflop bet but that money will be coming back to you only about 46% of the time.

Your preflop bets and raises are errors that are costing you money. That is why your profit margin is disappearing as the pot size increases. Once the pot gets so large that chasing is correct, your winning chances increase to 50% and any additional raises become zero EV. You've managed to lose your entire edge through incorrect preflop raises.

Now think about all the times you have been preflop with QTs or something versus four calling-stations. You just called the blind (wimp!) and some bright poster points out that you have 21% equity in a 5-way pot and you are a moron for not pushing that equity edge with a PFR [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

The problem is you are a good player and they are calling stations. I'm really happy for you getting to play a pot against these guys. No doubt you will make lots of money postflop. But it doesn't change the fact that you are not going to see that 21% share of the pots because you use your fold button and they don't. So unless some other factor is operating to make you PFR profitable, your 21% is going to shrink to 18% or whatever and your PFR will be a money-losing turkey.

A related concept is position. Undeserved pots flow from the blinds toward the button. Any value raise from the blinds should plan on winning less than a fair share of pots.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

this thread makes makes me smile. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it doesn't change the fact that you are not going to see that 21% share of the pots because you use your fold button and they don't. So unless some other factor is operating to make you PFR profitable, your 21% is going to shrink to 18% or whatever and your PFR will be a money-losing turkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I don't think I ever quite thought of that.

I think, though, that against most opponents raising increases folding equity and thus our opponents will be the ones not seeing a showdown quite as often. This is especially true when we have position.

Against calling stations out of position though, I certainly see your point.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

Very interesting concepts, I'm glad I found this thread.

Here is my take on it. Let me know if I'm not understanding something here please...

If you are in an EV neutral situation, you, as a good postflop player, are best served by not raising and bloating the pot. This allows your postflop edge to work more for you when your situation changes from an EV neutral situation to a +EV situation. The other players will be making bigger mistakes because the size of the pot does not cover their losses, and you will therefore be making bigger gains. Also, if your situation becomes a -EV situation, you can dump your hand, preventing you from making those mistakes too.

This seems analogous to the concept of protecting your hand, or of waiting until the turn to protect your hand a la SSH.

Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......
 

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is you are a good player and they are calling stations. I'm really happy for you getting to play a pot against these guys. No doubt you will make lots of money postflop. But it doesn't change the fact that you are not going to see that 21% share of the pots because you use your fold button and they don't. So unless some other factor is operating to make you PFR profitable, your 21% is going to shrink to 18% or whatever and your PFR will be a money-losing turkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew there was a sound reason I'm so wimpy preflop.

Look, obviously this concept can be taken too far. At some point our equity has to be high enough to compensate for the "problem" that we fold more than our opponents. Now all we have to do is figure out one catch-all formula for knowing where to draw the line.

Go to work math geeks. And make sure the formula takes into account that not all calling stations chase to an equal degree.

Re: Results
 

Actually, the real question is did you make subsequent good use of the info that CO is agro enough to 3-bet small pairs?