![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Suppose the game is 15-30 with no rake or time charge. Your opponents play fair. You play expertly. But except for unraised pots in the blinds, you play only AA KK QQ or AK. You move from game to game so that they have no idea you are playing so tight. Would you win?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Given that an eight hour session will cost him upwards of $600 in blinds, with no steal attempts, very limited positional legit open-raises, no real defense of his blinds, and no playing in family pots with lower pairs/suited connectors etc allowed, our expert is toast.
That's not factoring in the fact that his AA, KK, QQ and AK hands will sometimes: A)lose on the turn or river B)win pre-flop C)win on the flop D)split pots Best of luck - Billy (LTL) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think this strategy would count on the number of flops you could see from the blinds. By definition, at an aggressive table, you're basically donating 1.5 small bets per orbit... But if you got to see 1 or 2 flops per orbit from the blinds, that expert play should take care of the rest.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David,
Can we get some answers to your two threads from last week? I imagine its rather discouraging for those who put effort into answering these questions of yours to never receive the answers. Thanks |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No kidding. It's irritating as hell. There are also about 3 or 4 from last summer that he just totally forgot to follow up on. I don't remember what they were now.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes. 15-30 can be beaten with pretty straightforward play - pots get easily large enough for you to make profit playing only those hands. Not very fun, but still marginally profitable.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My guess is that the expert's EV with those hands might be somewhere in the ballpark of:
AA = $120 KK = $85 QQ = $65 AKs = $45 AKo = $35 These may be overly generous estimates, and I may be underestimating how well a "fair player" plays, but I wanted to err in favor of the expert since my intuition tells me there's no way he could win using this strategy. For every 1326 hands, he'll be dealt the pairs 6 times, AKs 4 times, and AKo 12 times, so given my estimates, his EV ends up at about $1.67 per hand, or $16.70 per orbit. Since he has to pay $25 in blinds per orbit, he needs to lose no more than $16.70 per orbit in the blinds just to break even, and I don't think this is possible considering the frequency that preflop raising occurs in a typical $15-30 game, which will often prevent him from seeing the flop. Plus we've already included the times he'll be dealt AA, KK, QQ, or AK in the blinds in our estimate of the $16.70 he'll earn per orbit. Even if the expert played the blinds correctly preflop (defending them when prope and raising preflop with other strong hands), I would expect him to lose somewhere in the ballpark of $13 per orbit in the blinds ($8 in the BB and $5 in the SB) those times he wasn't dealt AA, KK, or QQ. The fact that he's not defending his blind will almost definitely prevent him from losing less than $3.70 more. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
interesting post. this is the type of approach i would've used to answer this question also.
i wonder if there are actual data (ranges) of EV for particular hands played from the different positions. these data could be separated by player ability and table environment. anyone ever see anything like this? btw, i notice several posters stating that this kind of question is stupid or pointless. i disagree. i think the process of thinking about this type of question (and this question in particular) can improve a players' game. i dont believe the question was posed as a viable playing strategy, but to illustrate the unviability of extreme 'tight' play. for example, there may be players who are losing money in loose games, and decide to tighten up their starting hand standards. thinking about this question may save them from tightening up too much. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|