|
|
|
|
#1
11-22-2005, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
A note on the idea of WAWB
I was reading some posts and I noticed that some posters are incorrectly using the phrase "way ahead, way behind". I just wanted to let people know so we can all be on the same level here. Way ahead, way behind is used to describe a situation where you are either way ahead or way behind of your opponent's hand range. And I would usually say it has to be close to a 50/50 division. That is, out of the possible holdings for your opponent, the ones that are ahead of your hand have you drawing to a very small number of outs (ie. 2 or 3), and the hands that you are ahead of are drawing to a very small number of outs.
Here's some examples. I understand that some of these are extreme cases, but I'm just trying to make a point. 1) You have 77 on a K72 flop against a TAG raiser. This is obviously not a WAWB. You could say, "hey, if I'm behind, I'm drawing to 1 out, and if he's behind, he's drawing to at best 2 outs, sometimes 0". The problem is, that the hands you're ahead of greatly outnumber the hands you're behind to. If you hate money, then you can take the WAWB line, but against a TAG's raising standards, you're almost always ahead and should play it as such. 2) You have AA against a TAG 3-bettor and TAG capper. The flop comes 444. Don't use the logic, "hey, if I'm behind, I'm drawing almost dead, and if I'm ahead, they only have 2 outs. I'll just call the whole way down". No explanation needed here. 3) Here's a closer situation. You have KK vs a complete maniac. Let's say his stats are 50/30/2. The flop comes AA2. There could be an argument made for check/calling, but I think because his hand range is so large, you need to make sure more than 2.5 BBs go in postflop. If he shows you ace-trash-offsuit, oh well. 4) Here's one with the same flop but a different situation. A TAG raises, you 3-bet KK, and he caps. Let's say his capping range is AA-JJ, AK. The flop comes AA2, same as last hand. This time though, you're ahead of QQ-JJ (12 combinations), chopping with KK (1 combination), and behind to AA/AK (9 combinations). Assuming he will continue to bet all of those hands, the WAWB line should be applied here because a raise will only get 3-bet by a hand that has you crushed, but you don't want to fold because you have QQ/JJ crushed. 
|
|
#2
11-22-2005, 05:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
I always cringe when people talk about WA/WB when there are two flush draws out in a multiway pot on the turn.
While we're enlightening the populous, could we all please learn to use the words "number" and "amount" correctly. Examples: I have played a large number of hands. I have drank a large amount of water. Basically, if you can attach a number to your unit of measurement, use number, otherwise use amount. You can play 500 hands, but you cannot have 500 water.
|
|
#3
11-22-2005, 06:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
[ QUOTE ]
I always cringe when people talk about WA/WB when there are two flush draws out in a multiway pot on the turn. While we're enlightening the populous, could we all please learn to use the words "number" and "amount" correctly. Examples: I have played a large number of hands. I have <font color="red"> drank </font> a large amount of water. Basically, if you can attach a number to your unit of measurement, use number, otherwise use amount. You can play 500 hands, but you cannot have 500 water. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#4
11-22-2005, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I always cringe when people talk about WA/WB when there are two flush draws out in a multiway pot on the turn. While we're enlightening the populous, could we all please learn to use the words "number" and "amount" correctly. Examples: I have played a large number of hands. I have <font color="red"> drank </font> a large amount of water. Basically, if you can attach a number to your unit of measurement, use number, otherwise use amount. You can play 500 hands, but you cannot have 500 water. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] As long as we're "enlightening the populous", quoting someone else's post, while adding no commentary of your own, is dumb and wastes other readers' time.
|
|
#5
11-22-2005, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
Too funny here. Seriously. Totally seriously you guys.
|
|
#6
11-23-2005, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
No comment needed.
Great post btw. running bad? nh ToT
|
|
#7
11-23-2005, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I always cringe when people talk about WA/WB when there are two flush draws out in a multiway pot on the turn. While we're enlightening the populous, could we all please learn to use the words "number" and "amount" correctly. Examples: I have played a large number of hands. I have <font color="red"> drank </font> a large amount of water. Basically, if you can attach a number to your unit of measurement, use number, otherwise use amount. You can play 500 hands, but you cannot have 500 water. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] As long as we're "enlightening the populous", quoting someone else's post, while adding no commentary of your own, is dumb and wastes other readers' time. [/ QUOTE ] I think he was just highlighting the mistake in the middle of one of the nittiest posts in history.
|
|
#8
11-23-2005, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
This is where I should mention how I am in a constant fight with my local supermarket that they change
12 items or less to 12 items or fewer For more fun, see the further/farther hilarity in "Finding Forrester." Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#9
11-23-2005, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
[ QUOTE ]
I always cringe when people talk about WA/WB when there are two flush draws out in a multiway pot on the turn. While we're enlightening the populous, could we all please learn to use the words "number" and "amount" correctly. Examples: I have played a large number of hands. I have drank a large amount of water. Basically, if you can attach a number to your unit of measurement, use number, otherwise use amount. You can play 500 hands, but you cannot have 500 water. [/ QUOTE ] Can we also get the difference between less and fewer right as well?
|
|
#10
11-22-2005, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A note on the idea of WAWB
[ QUOTE ]
Here's one with the same flop but a different situation. A TAG raises, you 3-bet KK, and he caps. Let's say his capping range is AA-JJ, AK. The flop comes AA2, same as last hand. This time though, you're ahead of QQ-JJ (12 combinations), chopping with KK (1 combination), and behind to AA/AK (9 combinations). Assuming he will continue to bet all of those hands, the WAWB line should be applied here because a raise will only get 3-bet by a hand that has you crushed, but you don't want to fold because you have QQ/JJ crushed. [/ QUOTE ] Aren't we only behind to 5 hands here - the other AA, and 4 combos of AK? I'm sure I'm missing something here - set me straight.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
