Faulty Analysis in Hellmuth Cardplayer Column

[slickpoppa]

Ok, so read this article by Hellmuth in Cardplayer:
link

Basically, it describes a 3 way hand in which Carlos Mortensen calls 2 all-ins with about 1/3 of his stack with KQo. After the hand, Annie Duke questioned the call because of the chance that Carlos would be dominated. The part of the artice that is wrong is:

"While Annie’s point is excellent, so was Carlos’ point when he asked me about the hand at the 10-minute break. With $359,000 ($6,000 + $25,000 + $174,000 + $154,000) in the pot and Carlos having to call only $149,000 more, the pot was laying him 2.4-to-1. If he was looking at A-K, Q-Q, or A-Q, he would be only a 2.5-to-1 underdog, and based on that assessment, his call was OK."

First of all if Carlos were heads up against AK or AQ he would be a 3:1 dog. But even more importantly, he is not heads up. In a three way pot, if one player had AK and the other guy had a small pair like 9-9, Carlos' equity in the pot would only be about 20%, in which case he would need 4:1 odds to call, and his call is atrocious. If Carlos were against two smaller pairs his call would have been correct, but Phil clearly states that his call is almost correct even if he is dominated by one of the hands.

In fairness tp Phil, if he deserves that, the overall point of the article was not bad.