John Vorhaus and Killer Poker

[Dov]

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