Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

In the newest edition of Cardplayer, out today, Bob Ciaffone, Jim Brier, and Lee Jones all make inexcusable, rather disgraceful errors in their respective articles. Errors either in math, logic, or argumentation. While only one of the errors could cost a lot of money, they are all non tirvial and reflect a lack of understanding of some pretty basic things. Not only would two plus two authors never make these mistakes, neither would the likes of Roy Cooke, Dan Kimberg or Howard Lederer. I'm not talking about esoteric stuff or mere nitpicking.

See if you can find them all.

I am biting my tongue a little bit here because people don't like it when I get too mean. But these errors do bring up a point that I've thought, but not written, until now. Namely refuting the idea that almost any poker book has some value because there are always going to be a few pearls of wisdom to pick up. The presumtion is that those concepts that are already known are ignored and those concepts that are flawed are discarded. Well that's fine if the reader is knowledgeable and can separate the good from the bad. But what if he is not? Even a book where as much as 90% of the stuff is right may be of negative value to non discerning readers. Because most of the 90% is things that he already knows or can find elsewhere. Meanwhile if the reader blindly puts his faith in everything (something he can come closer to doing regarding books about most subjects) that these flawed poker thinkers write, he would be better off having read none of the book at all.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Am i missing something here? I don't even see an article by Lee Jones this month

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I guess it's this one.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

ok, i just got the one with the 2004 poker year in review on the cover in the mail yesterday.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Jim brier's math is horrible. Example given "2 outs from 45
unseen cards is about 4%". Thats true if you get to see
the turn only. However, we get to see the turn and river so
its over 8%. This makes multiple of his calculations wrong.

Lee jones logic is way off. "When i have to put a player on
2 specific cards to beat me, thats monsters under the bed
and I'm not playing that game." He is implying the opponent
can't have AA since he's holding an ace and 1 is on the board. The reason this is wrong is for example there are
players out there that only cap the preflop betting with
AA or KK. Specifically against this opponent there is a
25% chance of him having AA. This is hardly insignificant.

As for Bob Ciaffone "5 times big blind or less in chips its
time to go into panic mode look for a good spot to steal"
example given with blinds of 50-100 and a stack of 500 go all
in with any 2 on the puck if no one else is in yet.
This seems wrong to me. I would only do it on blind faith if
my poker mentor david sklansky told me it was right. I am
currently reading tournament poker for advanced players.
Great book, thanks david.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for Bob Ciaffone "5 times big blind or less in chips its
time to go into panic mode look for a good spot to steal"
example given with blinds of 50-100 and a stack of 500 go all
in with any 2 on the puck if no one else is in yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are multitabling SNG's then this is a standard move.

Ciaffone\'s error
 

Ciaffone wrote:

"So, let’s see what happens when you have a weak hand on the button with $500 in your stack, the blinds are $50-$100, and everyone folds to you. The odds of running into a pocket pair in the big blind are about 17-to-1 against. The odds on either one of the blinds having a pocket pair are about 9-to-1 against."

If you have 2 cards that are not paired, that means there is 50*49/2 = 1225 other starting hands possible. Of those, 72 can be pocket pairs (78 max, but you have 6 potential pairs blocked). 72/1225 = 5.878% chance one person will have pocket pair = 1 chance in 17 = 16:1 against.

So, it is 16:1 that any given player will have a pocket pair, not 17:1.

5.878% x 2 players = 11.756% chance 2 players might have at least one pair between them = 1 chance in 8.5 that either player will have pocket pair = 7.5:1 against.

So, it is 7.5:1 that either of the blinds will have a pocket pair when you are on the button, not 9:1.

Not a huge error, and I don't know if it was the one David saw, but an error nonetheless.

On to the other 2 articles.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for Bob Ciaffone "5 times big blind or less in chips its
time to go into panic mode look for a good spot to steal"
example given with blinds of 50-100 and a stack of 500 go all
in with any 2 on the puck if no one else is in yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are multitabling SNG's then this is a standard move.

[/ QUOTE ]

5xBB is WAY too late in SNG's as a standard move. You will always be giving 1.6-1 or so to the BB if you wait this long. 8-9x is the standard starting push here, 5x is simply a fallback.

Lee Jones\' errors
 

Lee Jones wrote:

"I was in the big blind with A-K offsuit. The under-the-gun (UTG) player raised, one or two players folded, there was another raise, another player or two folded, and somebody else capped it! Now, here was decision No. 1. There’s no shame in folding A-K offsuit, especially when you have to play it from out of position and three other players claim to like their hands. Your obvious concern here is that (1) you’re up against K-K or A-A, or (2) you’re up against another A-K. Especially in this scenario, having another A-K out would be a mess. After all, with all of those raises in there, it was very likely that at least one player had a pocket pair. So, I’d need to hit an ace or a king. But two of the six cards I wanted to see on the flop might well be in another hand, and if I hit one of them, I’d be sharing the pot with somebody else. I was actually coming close to folding, when I thought about two things: First, I was getting slightly better pot odds (almost 14-3) because I was paying one fewer bet than the rest. But more importantly, I saw that I had notes on two of the players. Both notes said that those players didn’t need much of a hand to raise (or even reraise). And the last player (the one who had put in the third bet) had no notes next to him.

It was a bit of a gamble, but I jumped in.

I flopped the nuts: A-5-5 rainbow. “Wait — that’s not the nuts. The nuts is A-A-K, or Q-J-10, or K-K-K, or … ” OK, but let’s stop being so technical for a moment and think about this. If one of these folks had A-A, I was drawing essentially dead. But note that for him to have that, he’d have to have specifically the remaining two aces in the deck. When I have to put a player on two specific cards to beat me, that’s monsters under the bed and I’m not playing that game. “What if one of ’em has a 5?” He’s going to win a big pot. But while it was possible that one of them held a 5 (or 5-5), it was very unlikely. In short, I had a hand that I was ready to play for the nuts. My only concern was whether I was splitting the pot with somebody. If so, I was not going to get him out, and I didn’t want to shut out the other players, who would be paying us off.

I checked. After all, I was supposed to be some idiot who called three bets cold in the big blind with nothing but dreams. Let’s see how the others felt about the flop. The UTG guy bet out, and got raised by the next player. Then, the button three-bet! That was almost certainly the other A-K. I just called the three bets cold (and found myself wondering what they thought I had). The UTG guy called both raises cold, but now the original flop raiser folded. He probably had a big pair and decided he needed to take a shot in this monster pot. When three other people were willing to put in three bets each, he knew his Q-Q (or whatever) was no good. I made a note about him.

The turn was a 7, putting a two-flush on the board. Now, I decided to see if we could trap UTG for a few bets. I bet, he called, and (as anticipated) the button raised. I seriously considered three-betting, but I was absolutely sure I was splitting the pot with the button, and I didn’t want UTG out. I decided that he didn’t have a flush draw, but more likely a big pair that he wasn’t willing to give up, or the case ace with a weaker kicker. So, I just called the raise, as did UTG. So far, so good.

The river was a beautiful offsuit 4. I bet out, and UTG folded! What in the world could he have come so far with only to give up now? And now, the button raised again! Well, shucks. Note that he had raised at every opportunity he had throughout the hand. My notes about him (“raises with weak hands”) notwithstanding, bad players are allowed to get dealt A-A. And there was always the danger that he held a 5. So, I simply called, expecting to split the pot. Imagine my astonishment to see that he held A-2 suited. In short, he’d been drawing very nearly dead on the flop. I was delighted not to have to share the monster pot with him, of course, and made a note that he overplayed bad aces."

**********************

Error #1 - he wasn't getting 14:3 on the preflop call. He was getting 10.5:3 on the exact call, and if everyone called (which isn't a sure thing), he would be getting 13.5:3. This is an error in math, as I think the call is correct.

Error #2 - he puts UTG raiser on pocket pair (rather than flush draw), and then lets him see the river for the proper pot odds call of one more bet. Huge mistake.

There were 16.5 small bets preflop. 11 small bets on the flop (and another missed raise opportunity to make the UTG raiser fold a pocket pair).

Jones then has the chance to make it 2 big bets to UTG on the turn by 3 betting, which would make the odds 2 big bets to call with 7 big bets and 27.5 small bets in the pot, or 10.25:1. Insufficient odds to chase a 2 outer.

Instead, Jones calls the turn raise, letting the UTG call 1 bet to win 27.5 small bets and 5 big bets, or 18.25:1, which is sufficient to chase a 2 outer with that big a pot + implied odds.

Jones says he wanted the pocket pair in. Terrible.

Further, the guy could have had a flush draw on the turn, and while he would not have folded a reraise on the turn, he got a cheap river.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I can point out something obvious that annoyed me in Brier's column:


[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, a typical betting sequence in which you go all the way to the river will result in your putting in more than 14 percent of the money that ends up in the pot. This is due to the fact that not all of your preflop opponents will stay all the way to the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but your pot equity will also increase as players fold because it is pretty rare in a multiway pot for multiple players to have zero outs against you. If you flop top pair with no flush draw any pair will run you down about 10% of the time. If those pairs fold your pot equity increases.

_________________

As for Jones' column I have no idea why he would not reraise on the turn especially given his reads. The pot is big so you want a flush draw or many worse hands to fold (flush draw likely won't) or you make him pay to draw. Also, how do you just "decide he doesn't have a flush draw" if he is an unpredictable bad player. Finally even considering folding AK preflop against the described opponents I think is horrible.

Pocket pair discussion above is excellent as well.

Just my two cents.