[senjitsu]

Although I think he could have made the point better, I think the basic point of the whole discussion of low pairs out of position was "Generally, its bad to put yourself in a situation where everything has to go exactly right for you to make money."

I think his point about getting called by Q8 and TJ was more along the lines of even when you do hit a set and get paid off, there's still things that can go wrong -- i.e. a hand like bottom set is strong, but still fundamentally vulnerable (i think he could have used a better illustration than he did)

Regarding your odds to flop a set -- yeah, you're getting 11-1 odds when the raise comes back around to you, so its a clear call -- but taken as a single decision, you are not getting proper odds on your small set.

To put it another way, say your choices were:
A. Call the raise.
B. Fold to the raise.
C. Take the delorean back in time and prevent yourself entering the pot.

Choice C would have the highest expectation as a whole (it would be zero... , choices A and B would both yield a negative expectation though B would be more negative).



[ QUOTE ]
I know that this post revolves around a book, but the concept is theory, so I put it here.

John wrote a 2nd companion book to his original 'Killer Poker' called 'Killer Poker Holdem Hanbook - A workbook for winners'.

The book is great but I noticed some strange thinking.

He starts debating and discussing the play of small pocket pairs (below 88) out of position (EP to MP) in full ring games, finally coming to the conclusion that your win rate probably wouldn't be too damaged if you just folded them PF.

I have no problem with this advice per se, but he bases his conclusion on what he calls an event parlay which he deems to be unlikely. I happen to agree with him that the parlay is unlikely, but it looks like he makes some mistakes in his logic.

It has been my understanding that the play of hands should factor everything that you know now, and ignore past mistakes (in so far as pot odds calculations go). It seems like he is suggesting otherwise.

On pages 130-131 he outlines the following scenario:

You call in EP with 44 , it gets raised in MP, 4 people call the raise, the small blind folds, and it's one bet back to you.

You are now getting 11-1 and have a clear call. This is obvious to most of us here. (To those who don't know yet, you are 7.5-1 to flop a set)

Suddenly, though, he contradicts himself in the next paragraph, saying that now you have to put in 2 bets PF making your actual investment 5-1 instead of 11-1.

I don't see how this can be right.

If you thought it would get raised initially, then you should fold it. If you were wrong, and it did get raised anyway, then you still have a clear call given all the action so far.

-------------------------

But wait, there's more....

Now he's actually saying that even if you flop the set, you should still be afraid. This completely confused me.

Page 132:

Same situation 44 in EP, Raise from MP with 6 callers. Flop comes Q84 rainbow.

We bet the flop and no one raises. This and the PF action is telling us that no one has a set. (These reads are assumed to be correct.)

Now suddenly, the fear hits.

1. We sure hope no one has a JT (looking for a 9) (Why not? It's a 4 Outer!)
2. We sure hope no one has Q8 (4 outs)
3. We sure hope on one has 55 (2 outs!)

I don't see the difference with this hand if he would have made your hand AA and the flop come AQ8 rainbow.

Why would he want action from those hands then? (obviously, we would destroy the Q8 if it fills up here)

I'm confused...

Or not [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Dov

[/ QUOTE ]