Pot Limit Stud8 Hand from Barry Greenstein's Book

[Bill Murphy]

They might've been playing 'regular' hi/lo, not eight or better. Not quite sure if or how this changes things. Ooops. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[barryg1]

It was funny at the time was watching the professor doing the mental mathematics. He sat there for a couple of minutes and computed that there were 41 unknown cards which means I have (41 choose 3)= 10660 possible three-card holdings and I had to have 3 out of 5 possible low flush cards. (He didn't have of them.) (5 choose 3) = 10. If my hole cards were random, I guess that would mean it was over 1000 to 1 against him getting scooped or three-quartered. The point of the story was how foolish and irrelevant his calculation was.

I am often accosted with this kind of logic when players tell me their bad beat stories. People either use random cards, or "those in the know" choose from possible initial or final holdings. But "those in the know" are wrong also. They will say, "From the early betting a player had Ace, Kings, or Queens," and then they do a calculation that shows they got proper pot-odds on a call. Meanwhile, I know how the player in question bets with the nuts, so I knew he had the best hand, even if I couldn't figure out what it was. Calculations are usually irreleavant once someone looks at their cards and gives information with their bets and the way they act. Even on the initial two or three cards, I can discern differences in the hands of opponents I am very familiar with, that I qualitatively tranlate into probabilities. In otherwords, the probabilities for different possible startings hands are not all equal to a real poker player.

In the hand in question, I may also have felt pot stuck and called if I had the professor's hand. But back in 1975, that was an enormous amount of money for that game. At that time, that was the largest win to date for either of us. It certainly wasn't close 1000 to 1 against me having the low flush, and when I raised what seemed like all the money in the world at the time, players at the table with any poker sense knew what I probably caught on the river.

Barry

[mmcd]

Hero's mistake this hand wasn't calling the raise, it was betting the river in the first place. Given the way the hand played out, the only hand he could possibly be extracting value from is a very unlikely unimproved trips (and quite possibly not even then). Does he think his opponent will ever call the river with a 7 or fold a 6. The problem here is that given his opponent's likely handrange, there are many cards he could catch that give him the 1-way nuts that he could freeroll checkraise to try and blow hero of his half of the pot.

Obviously, every bet must have a purpose either as a value bet or as bluff, but in PL games (particularly split games) the reasons for betting must be carefully weighed against the consequences of facing a big raise and get put in tough spot. Here, given villains range of 333 234 or A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] X [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], there are more than enough river cards give villain the 1-way (virtual) nuts to mandate a call of the big raise. Hero is forced to put a whole bunch of money in now hoping to get 1/2 the pot.

[mscags]

If you were in the Prof.'s situation would you have been able to lay that hand down? I don't think there is any chance I could lay it down, but that must be one of my flaws.

[bigredlemon]

Since this is no a no qualifier hilo stud game, I think we can rule out rolled trips given villain's raise. It also makes the 3rd street raise to more likely represent 3 wheel cards for his down cards. The no qualifier also makes it much less likely for the villain to raise with just a high flush without a low as there's almost no chance he can scoop against any hand that can call his raise.

This makes me much more willing to fold to a large river bet--not that I'm saying I'd fold of course.

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were in the Prof.'s situation would you have been able to lay that hand down? I don't think there is any chance I could lay it down, but that must be one of my flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I wrote privately to Bill, I'm not saying that I could have laid it down either. I was just saying that the professor knew by his poker sense that he was in trouble, yet he still resorted to math with absurd hypotheses.

Since it was no qualifier, that lessens the possiblility of me having trips, but I still would probably bet the professor's hand, even though a check could induce a bluff. You often get paid off by a player who thinks his weak high, e.g., a pair on the river, might get half the pot.

The people who think check is right seem to be result merchants to me.

Barry

[mscags]

I think I'm beginning to understand a little bit better now. Are you trying to say that no matter what the odds or the "math" says, that sometimes you just know you are beat. Even if it is 1:100 or 1:1000 against him beating you or scooping or whatever the case, you shouldn't force yourself to make the call just because the "math" says that your read is absurd? Let me know if I am way off on this [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[benneh]

fold when you're beat?

who'da thunk it.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[mscags]

[ QUOTE ]
fold when you're beat?

who'da thunk it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You got me..... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm beginning to understand a little bit better now. Are you trying to say that no matter what the odds or the "math" says, that sometimes you just know you are beat. Even if it is 1:100 or 1:1000 against him beating you or scooping or whatever the case, you shouldn't force yourself to make the call just because the "math" says that your read is absurd? Let me know if I am way off on this [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That may also be true, but that's not what I'm saying. The point is that math doesn't apply the way people use it in poker, once someone looks at their cards. Once viewed, there is always some action (betting, calling, etc.) or there is some reaction (tells). Cards are no longer random. Even if you can determine a range of hands, the probability will not be evenly distributed across that set of hands. Starting hand strategies are mathematical in nature. After people look at their cards, poker is a much more psychological game than mathematical.

On the hand in question, I guess I might have made that raise with a big flush or a wheel, but the odds were certainly less that 10 to 1 against me having a low flush, given how much money that was at the time.

Barry