|
|
#71
10-11-2004, 02:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OK Here is The Answer
[ QUOTE ]
Because you can win in a showdown if you hit the two or three, whereas there is simply no way you could if you don't. [/ QUOTE ] Not against the hands you'd have been called with earlier. However, if a 2 or 3 comes you may be able to get a hand that would have folded earlier to call put $10 more in the pot. Or, if a higher card comes, you may now be able to bluff more hands out of the pot. 
|
|
#73
10-11-2004, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s Wrong With This Statement?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you don't bet, you aren't dead. That is a more important factor than the possibility that your bluff is called and you tie. [/ QUOTE ] So if a 2 or a 3 comes, your opponent may bet into you with a hand worse than 44 and you'll get an additional $10. This gives value to seeing fourth street, so it increases the chance to steal that you'd need to bet the flop. EDIT: Or more generally, you don't even need to hit a 3 or a 2, any card that looks dangerous to them helps because it can make them fold a greater number of hands that beat you now. [/ QUOTE ] If you ignore the possibility of a split pot, the 20% figure is accurate if your only options are to bet or to fold to no bet. You don't need to bet or call later to do better than folding. If an ace comes on the turn, and a 3 on the river, and you check it down, you might win or tie. Maybe two 5s will come, and you will split the pot. These scenarios give you a piece of the $40 pot even though you didn't bet. Maybe you can do better than this, but these complications are not the point. The main point is that you should compare (B) betting on the flop with (C) checking rather than (B) betting on the flop with (F) folding. That B is at least as good as F does not mean it is better than C. C is always at least as good as F.
|
|
#74
10-11-2004, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I think Gabe is right, more or less
See, I don't see that. If a jack comes then their calling requirements will have changed to 'any ace' from 'any pair 44+'... maybe even 'Any King'.
Regardless, the chance that someone has even an ace is going to be higher than that they have a pair of fours or better, so your chance of stealing should drop at that point. Also, you would need it to go up from 80%, not up from 20%. The only scenarios I see in that case are a two or three coming up, increasing both your steal and win chances, which is what I suggested in my previous post and what David (seemed to have) rejected in his reply.
|
|
#75
10-11-2004, 03:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OK Here is The Answer
So the idea is that I had the right answer (the second time) but the wrong why? I had assumed that only 44 or better would call you on the turn as well. But if other hands will now call when a 'blank' falls, then you could actually win with a hand as well.
|
|
#76
10-11-2004, 04:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OK Here is The Answer
Plus you have to factor in a small amount of split pot equity, which at least will happen around 6% of the time. With a 20.3% chance to win and an undetermined chance to tie against all non dominated or paired hands, the percent we need to steal this pot goes to about 23.5% I think.
And I dont think we can consider the chance that our opponent will check in this example, since we are saying that he has a pocket pair in all likelyhood. If we are only worried about a call from 11 hands and are considering a success rate in the low 20's, we likely can't expect this hand to see the turn for free. Plus everyone shoves short stacks in, they go for the buckeyes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].
|
|
#77
10-11-2004, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OK Here is The Answer
By the way, if I were to give the 'lesson' I learned here it's just reinforcing that the money in the pot currently is not lost if you fold without a bet. One more time that it's good to get it pounded in that my BB is not my money, and once it's in the pot it isn't there either.
|
|
#78
10-11-2004, 06:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OK Here is The Answer
The EV by betting with a 20% shot of everyone folding is smaller than the EV for not betting. Since the first is zero, the second must be greater than zero.
If by betting $10 into a $40 pot, you win x% of the time and lose 100% of the time you don't bet, then 20% is the break even point. If, when you don't bet, you still sometimes win some/all of the pot, then that x is somewhat greater than 20%. 4 out of 5 times this situation comes up, your opponent holds no pair and you will win if you hit a 2 or 3. By betting every time, you win $0 (lose $10 4x, win $40 once). By checking every time, you still have some pot equity 4/5 times when your opponent does not hold a PP>44.
|
|
#79
10-11-2004, 06:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OK Here is The Answer
This is a wild guess so here it goes:
If you check, there is a slight possibility that it will be checked twice around to the showdown. You could end up hitting a 3 or 2 on the turn or river. There is a possibility that none of your opponents will have pocket pair 4 or higher, not paired one of their cards, and not have the jack. So you have a very slight chance of winning the pot without risking anything and huge chance of losing the pot without risking anything. So if you plan on doing this, you'll have positive expectation. If you plan to bet, then your expectation must exceed the expectation from the slight possibility that checking alone will win you the pot for it to be the better of the two decisions. Even though your expectation is positive when your chances of stealing are slightly greater than 20%, it may be less than your expectation from checking. I doubt thats anywhere near the answer.
|
|
#80
10-11-2004, 06:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OK Here is The Answer
"If you check, there is a slight possibility that it will be checked twice around to the showdown. You could end up hitting a 3 or 2 on the turn or river. There is a possibility that none of your opponents will have pocket pair 4 or higher, not paired one of their cards, and not have the jack. So you have a very slight chance of winning the pot without risking anything and huge chance of losing the pot without risking anything. So if you plan on doing this, you'll have positive expectation.
If you plan to bet, then your expectation must exceed the expectation from the slight possibility that checking alone will win you the pot for it to be the better of the two decisions. Even though your expectation is positive when your chances of stealing are slightly greater than 20%, it may be less than your expectation from checking. I doubt thats anywhere near the answer. " Only your last sentence was wrong.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
