|
|
#11
03-23-2005, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: what do you mean by succeed?
[ QUOTE ]
But even if I didn't know all of the above, just the fact that you're against 4 as opposed to 1 makes it common sense that you're more likely beaten in the first scenario, doesn't it? [/ QUOTE ] <devil's advocate> But in the first scenario, all the other hands have folded, so it's just you and the button left. Doesn't that mean the two are essentially the same? </devil's advocate> 
|
|
#12
03-23-2005, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: what do you mean by succeed?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Che, given that you can never get a better hand to fold in these two situations then getting called or raised by a worse hand has to be the answer to that question because if everybody folds its clearly a bad thing. [/ QUOTE ] I understand what you're saying, MLG, but that doesn't mean that that is what the OP meant. I'm just trying to clarify since some will think taking the pot now is "success." Later, Che [/ QUOTE ] Apologies for the bad wording. What I'm trying to get at is, in which case do you think it's more likely that you're beaten? You're down to heads up in both cases, because in case 1 all the folks between you and the button have folded.
|
|
#13
03-23-2005, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, you are far more likely beaten in the first scenario. In the blind war, it seems very unlikely that someone with a J bets here. Rather, I'd expect a slowplay hoping that you'll catch up or bluff at the pot on the turn. With multiple players, I would think it more likely that a J would bet on the button when it is checked to them. On the other hand, I see a slowplayed AA-QQ to be more likely in the blind war, as I don't see any thinking player not raising a bunch of limpers on the button with these hands. Given the relative infrequency of these hands, however, I believe that this possibility does not outweigh the considerations above. [/ QUOTE ] I agree here. With 4 checks in #1, the button would be less likely to bet with so many to act afterwards and for fear of being CR'd (highly likely with a J out there). In 2, the BB will be more likely to be on a steal/semi bluff type bet hoping u fear the board.
|
|
#14
03-23-2005, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
[ QUOTE ]
I agree here. With 4 checks in #1, the button would be less likely to bet with so many to act afterwards and for fear of being CR'd (highly likely with a J out there). In 2, the BB will be more likely to be on a steal/semi bluff type bet hoping u fear the board. [/ QUOTE ] Good point. But suppose button is a bot and bets 100% of the time in this situation. Now are you more likely beat in case 1 or 2? Or are the odds equal? Remember, you're heads-up in both cases.
|
|
#15
03-23-2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I agree here. With 4 checks in #1, the button would be less likely to bet with so many to act afterwards and for fear of being CR'd (highly likely with a J out there). In 2, the BB will be more likely to be on a steal/semi bluff type bet hoping u fear the board. [/ QUOTE ] Good point. But suppose button is a bot and bets 100% of the time in this situation. Now are you more likely beat in case 1 or 2? Or are the odds equal? Remember, you're heads-up in both cases. [/ QUOTE ] Well, since you've eliminated the variable of "less likely to bet into more players w/o J/overpair, then I guess I dont see any more to distinguish....except maybe that case 1 would still make it more likely given that with all of those folds after seeing the flop, we can be assured that none of them have a J and neither do we...so it stands to reason that it is more likely that Button will have a J compared to #2 bc we have elimated more non Js from the whole? Or is that just asinine?
|
|
#16
03-23-2005, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
Easy answer. You are beaten more often in scenario #1. There are 5 limpers (including you and the button?) The first 3 fold after button bets. They obviously do not have a J. so there are 2 out of 41 cards that the button is holding that may be a J. In the second scenario, there are 2 out of 47 cards that the BB is holding that may be a J.
|
|
#17
03-23-2005, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
Sounds a little 'monte hall'ish to me. But the 4 limpers definitely make you worse off.
In the case with blinds, straightforward computation, the % of total hands that contain a j is X. You could back out probable raising hands. 4 limpers, the probabilty that someone has the J is Y. You can get creative with this calculation, backing out unplayable hands, and raising hands, etc. Now you would need to find the conditional prob. of the button holding a Jack given that the 1st 3 players didn't, Z. Didnt work it out, but obviously Z > X
|
|
#18
03-23-2005, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
[ QUOTE ]
Easy answer. You are beaten more often in scenario #1. There are 5 limpers (including you and the button?) The first 3 fold after button bets. They obviously do not have a J. so there are 2 out of 41 cards that the button is holding that may be a J. In the second scenario, there are 2 out of 47 cards that the BB is holding that may be a J. [/ QUOTE ] This is basically what I'm getting at. The odds of the last guy having a jack are significantly increased simply because there were more players in the hand. It may look like you're "heads up" here, but that's really not the case. Even though the other players have folded, the fact that they were in the hand to start with should affect your analysis. This issue pops up all over the place, yet few seem to pay any attention to it. For example, this is why the strategy for playing a hand "heads up," as in with only one caller at a 9-person table, is worlds apart from playing a heads up hand at a 2-person table, even if you're the SB vs the BB. The players who folded are not just "gone." People like to play high cards. So if it's folded to the button, the blinds are actually more liklely to have good hands than if there are a bunch of limpers up front, and are also more likely to have good hands than a true heads-up opponent. The high cards have to be somewhere. Similarly, the deck is more likely to be "rich," as in, high cards are more likely to hit on the board, as lots of lower cards have been taken out. So suckouts will be more common. This is part of the reason why I prefer to steal from around MP3 than the CO or the button. The moral is, beware next time someone bases a play on the fact that they are "heads up." Make sure you consider the entire situation.
|
|
#19
03-23-2005, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds a little 'monte hall'ish to me. But the 4 limpers definitely make you worse off. [/ QUOTE ] That's the exact analogy I used when explaining this to a friend. Bravo.
|
|
#20
03-23-2005, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An applied pobability theory problem
[ QUOTE ]
. They obviously do not have a J. so there are 2 out of 41 cards that the button is holding that may be a J. In the second scenario, there are 2 out of 47 cards that the BB is holding that may be a J. [/ QUOTE ] OK... so out of 41 cards, that means that there's 820 possible hand combos for button to have. Lets say he'd limp with AJ, KJ, QJ, JJ, JT, J9s, and J8s (is that reasonable). SO then that gives him 33 possible holdings that contain a J. 33/820 = 4.0% In the 2nd one, out of 47 cards, he's got 1081 combinations, but he could have ANY J. J2 - JA = 91, which would be 8.4%... i guess you could say that he would probably PF raise from BB with his bigger hands in this group (maybe JTs+), but even still he'd be more likely to have a J than button in other example. I stand by my answer.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
