Another Simple Question and Simple Answer

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between two fours and two sevens in expectation in a multihanded 10-20 game could be as little as zero if my instincts are right and as much as a buck if others are. And even if it was more it would almost never change your strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

as several people have noted, it is not necessary to rely on instincts in such a context-generic situation. here's some data from one of my own databases with 180,000 hands, listing only pairs on 4+ handed flops. with ~450 instances of each situation, 77 fared .19bb/hd ($5.70 in a 15/30 game) better when i played it. others can corroborate their own hand statistics, and i would expect their results to show a difference as well. at pokerroom.com's 10-handed ev chart 77 is signifigantly more profitable in most positions. 77 wins 36% against 3 random hands hot and cold, and 44 wins 26%. etc. that being said, i think instincts should say that higher cards are worth more.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't some of you guys ever wonder why there are so many players out there who are beating 30-60 thru 200-400 for more than you could, without knowing the satistical minutae that you do. Granted that is no big deal for the time being when you can play five 15-30 games online against morons. But still don't you wonder?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i haven't wondered about that. for openers, i don't necessarily believe that there are "so many" that could. for example, there aren't even that many 200/400 games in the usa. i also think that people who chose to not play with "morons" have bad game selection. coilean doesn't play online and also lives in st. louis, and maintains that our local 20/40 is much better than the online games. i believe him, and if they were playing 80/160 or higher i would certainly consider switching.

the point you're really missing here is that the thrust of the debate over 77/44 had nothing to do with statistical minutae. it's a high card game, lower sets are more vulnerable to higher sets and two-pair-becomes-full-houses, 77 has more straight possibilities, and has a better chance of winning unimproved. this why i (and probably everyone else that did) disagreed with you on both of your positions.

i am far from encyclopedic when it comes to pokertracker-type statistics, and i only use them to confirm or deny suspiscions when i feel i have a large enough sample size of the specific scenario. at the tables, i just play poker like the others.

back into this thread, the reason i bet in this situation is because the typical mid-limit game is loose, and i don't take "thinking" to imply "good" or "odds-aware". i still maintain that you do not understand how loose the typical mid-limit game is today.

[BookOfIcculus]

Not directed toward Andy. His post was just the one I clicked on.

It doesn't matter how you play this hand. How often are you gonna get to paly 23o on a 226r flop? Most of the posts are treating this hand like it's gold. It's a money winner sure, but there are some considerations. Check is best most of the time and the reason is that someone else will bet almost every time a free card will hurt you. Betting is better when you might be setting a trap for yourself. You have a timid player open limping UTG?!? What is he thinking? Well he's is thinking lets see a flop. You have people to act behind him who also probably know that the timid players hand is probably as good as 89s or Q5s. Suddenly, a late position k2s looks better. And your 3 kicker looks like a million bucks that got ran over by a bus. In a live game if I happen to get into a raising war with this hand I'd go into check call faster than you can say weaktight.

The most important consideration is that after you check this flop you imediately request a seat change. You want to act directly after the timid player. I assume he is loosish as well. When you raise every playable hand that he timidly limps with you will have a banner day.

So in my opinion even tho this hand has the most +EV by checking the flop. Switching seats is where the real money is at.

Best Regards,
book

[Ulysses]

Good post, Andy.

[andyfox]

In my games, guys just don't play hands with a deuce in 'em unless the other card is a suited ace or another deuce. I think it's unreasonable to be worried about a guy also having a deuce when I have one and two flop. There's much more likely to be a raising war because they don't believe I have anything when I bet a 6-2-2 flop into the field.

[BookOfIcculus]

The raising war would certainly happen if like you said someone can rule out a duece but in this hand you saw a flop from the blind. So only a fool or midly tilted player would even consider it impossible of you to have a duece. And a raising war would also developed if someone had the other duece. But the most likely case for a rasing war would be a turned or rivered full house. Perhaps I pay too much attention to the fact that when a BB gets to see the flop for free, he could in fact have anything.

[Zeno]

Part of the problem is that the whole set up is a metaphysical construction, which is good to get everyone thinking and discussing about poker but somewhat subjective. For example, just go over the thread and any number of definitions for’Thinking’ or 'timid' player is postulated and have a variety of different interpretations to a whole army of players. Whole topics and sidebars as to what thinking player really means etc and etc and so on. As to a right and wrong answer this is at best subjective also and may even be beside the point.

I recently played (a month ago) in a 20-40 game. I had not played mid-limit poker in the last year or so. I noticed right away the loose play and the loose calls by players. Some players I knew from long ago – they all play at least a bit looser than they use to, even from just two years ago. With the advent of all the new players the style of the game is changing and the style is changing at a more rapid pace. True acceleration.

-Zeno

[Festus22]

Doesn't your answer contradict page 123 of HPFAP where you state it is often profitable to bluff when a pair flops and there's not a straight or flush draw? The section says against thinking players, they may play back at you thinking you're trying to buy the pot.

So wouldn't basic second level thinking dictate betting here?

[DeeJ]

I agree with checking, although because I know the players know - they are thinking players - I might have a deuce I hope they will hit top pair on the turn and I may well wait until the river to have the raising war.

As Lee Jones relates, if you aren't winning or losing a lot of money with a set, you aren't playing it right.

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

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a timid player open limping UTG?!? What is he thinking? Well he's is thinking lets see a flop. You have people to act behind him who also probably know that the timid players hand is probably as good as 89s or Q5s. Suddenly, a late position k2s looks better. And your 3 kicker looks like a million bucks that got ran over by a bus. In a live game if I happen to get into a raising war with this hand I'd go into check call faster than you can say weaktight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't find this sort of thinking to be indicative of a game with which you might possibly be unfamiliar these days?

We have people positing that "timid players" are playing absolute trash utg, "thinking players" are considering limps with even worse trash, and free-play-in-the-blind players are worrying about their kickers when they flop an obviously profitable hand.

I point this out because I know that many of us are fully aware of the fact that this is precisely the current mindset in many of the middle limit games these days.

Just my two cents, but I consider it relevant. It is not intended to flame the poster to whom this post is responding.

[GimmeDaWatch]

Interesting post in that the "simple question" inspired so many replies and disagreements. That being said, In this exact situation where it is very likely no one caught a piece of the flop, I would probably check it as David suggested in all but the loosest games. Im curious to know how David would recommend playing the flop if it came K22 with 2 spades or something similar. In that case, I would probably bet it to charge draws and hopefully get the standard "do you have a 2" raise from a K (in which case I might call, check-raise). For me personally, if the BB bets out on the flop of 622, and then bets out when an overcard comes on the turn, Im thinking he's got the 2 unless Ive seen him fire away with nothing previously into a multi-way pot (b/c this is a multi-way pot, I would be much more likely to believe him). At any rate, I think this is a somewhat valid question, as you will more often see a flop with either a flush draw or a higher card than 622 rainbow. By the way, Im still trying to let it sink in that 40/80 players would call a bet with just overcards and then call down if/when they hit even if its not heads up.