Settle this discussion, please.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your intellect and analytical insights into the game. But I see why Ray Zee always seems to to downplay these scenarios. They just aren't realistic. You can thoerize any range of hands you want. Loose players are more tied to any kind of A than their own children and, when one hits in a 5-6 way pot, a missed KQ flop is almost always bananas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is my hand range implausible?

Is it hard to believe that, around 14% of the time, nobody has an ace, four-flush, or set?

What's unrealistic about my assumptions?

[ActionBob]

My gut says that your hand range is much too narrow. The limping range you give looks like one of a "relatively" tight player. Now I'm not talking a tight aggressive high caliber player, but your range is really all suited connectors, most aces, and relatively coordinated high cards. This is most likely the range of a "tighter" limper.

I understand you started the initial post with "Let's assume that all four opponents are limping with roughly the same range of hands, as I've specified below", but I don't this this range is even close for 4 typical Party limpers.

-ActionBob

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your intellect and analytical insights into the game. But I see why Ray Zee always seems to to downplay these scenarios. They just aren't realistic. You can thoerize any range of hands you want. Loose players are more tied to any kind of A than their own children and, when one hits in a 5-6 way pot, a missed KQ flop is almost always bananas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is my hand range implausible?

Is it hard to believe that, around 14% of the time, nobody has an ace, four-flush, or set?

What's unrealistic about my assumptions?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to leave A7o and A6o out of their range, fine. But don't you know that A5o-A2o can make a wheel, clearly they must be included [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ActionBob]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to leave A7o and A6o out of their range, fine. But don't you know that A5o-A2o can make a wheel, clearly they must be included [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe its just me and I'm being a bit delusional (certainly wouldn't be the first time), but I'm a bit puzzled by this part of the thread with Nate's range and the little joke here about the little Aces. Now I guess there's no way we can get any real data on this, but I'd be absolutely shocked if we had real data and found that less than 80% of Ace little offsuit hands weren't limped with.

-ActionBob

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 11 SB in the pot. If you bet,will you get all four opponents to fold more than once out of eleven. Bet the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. More like 1/111.

[adios]

One thing that many aren't taking into account is that when your opponent doesn't have an Ace, spiking a K or Q can often win it for you. Strangely though I like the line that our hero took on this hand as I'm guessing it's higher EV to check and see what action develops after you. Nobody is going to slow play a hand with the pot being so big and if a late player to act bets you may be able to get in a check raise (a risky play) getting the pot heads up if you suspect your opponent doesn't have an Ace.

This play is somewhat similar to a play recommended in HFAP that was perhaps still is quite controversial on this forum awhile back. The key difference between this situation and the situation in HFAP is that in HFAP hero bets his/her gutshot with an Ace showing to eliminate overcards, perhaps overpairs, and other undesirable hands. In the situation in this thread there are no overcards that will fold to a bet and such thus you wont clean up as many outs by betting.

[surfdoc]

ALthough I know the grand Poo-bahs rarely get involved with Party 15 hands, I really would like David, Mason, Or Ray to jump in here. This seems like it has been discussed in several 2+2 books already but maybe this situation is different.

[SA125]

You're out of position the rest of the hand. I think more money will be lost than won overall by betting out instead of check/folding in that particular spot.

Trying to figure the range of hands of 4 random limpers to justify the EV of it doesn't seem as realsitic as what your experience with that hand, that scenario and that flop is. Which is that you're probably toast. If others say it's not, than they should know. I agree with hero that you are.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
You're out of position the rest of the hand. I think more money will be lost than won overall by betting out instead of check/folding in that particular spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care about the rest of the hand. The discussion is about folding the field.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really care about the rest of the hand. The discussion is about folding the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think more money will be lost than won overall by betting out instead of check/folding in that particular spot.