99

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think Q10 is more probable than 22? Imo a loose passive plays them exaclty the same. Why should I discount any 89s? He has a gutshot. Thats enough for a loose passive. I think you are unfair right now. I did change my range on every street except the river. But the river bet can imo mean anything. Even loose passives realise they might have to bluff their J9s or 98s here. :/

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be being harsh, but I think that this is one of the most common mistakes people are doing right now when analyzing, and I really want people to fix it at least a bit.

QT is more probably than 22 because he plays them differently on average.

I am going to use some random estimations here, so don't jump down my throat about the numbers. There are 12 combos of QTo, and 6 combos of 22. Lets say he cold calls QTo 75% of the time, and 22 50% of the time. Lets say he calls the flop with QTo 100% of the time, and calls the flop with 22 50% of the time. Lets say he checks the turn with QTo 50% of the time, and checks the turn with 22 100% of the time. Lets say he is equally likely to bet the river.

From these numbers there are now:

QT - 12 * .75 * .5 = 4.5 combos
22 - 6 * .5 * .5 = 1.5 combos

With the kind of weighting people normally do, QT is only twice as likely as 22. But if we think about it more, we see that QT is three times as likely. This makes a huge difference.

You don't need to be so exact, as we can never estimate perfectly, but putting a little more effort into figuring out how often he might play a hand a certain way could change your equity result drastically.

Edit: You should discount 89s drastically because although he has a gutshot, he is still folding this flop a huge amount of the time.

I fire the turn again. Not sure what to do on the river if he calls though. On a pure blank I might check/call if he's aggressive to pick off a bluff from a busted draw or lower pockets. If he's not aggressive or the river puts 4 to a straight or 3 to a flush, it's a check/fold.

Well I dont do any calculations but let pstove do it. So the 12 combos vs 6 combos preflop is done automatically.

I disagree about your weighting preflop. I think he is equally likely to call with 22. I agree with the flop but think he calls a little bit more on the flop, perhaps 65%. I think however that Q10 is raising around 10% on the flop. On the turn I think Q10 is checking 20% of the time. So for me:

Q10 is 12*0.9*0.2=2.16
22 is 6*0.65=3.9

I agree with your point that we should be a little more thourough in our analysis but its quite difficult with so little information. Our answers differ greatly because of the preflop assumption. :/

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I dont do any calculations but let pstove do it. So the 12 combos vs 6 combos preflop is done automatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly the problem. If 22 is less likely than normal, you need to remove 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or something like that to drop its likelyhood by 25%.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree about your weighting preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do too, I was throwing these out to show how to do the analysis.


[ QUOTE ]
I think he is equally likely to call with 22. I agree with the flop but think he calls a little bit more on the flop, perhaps 65%. I think however that Q10 is raising around 10% on the flop. On the turn I think Q10 is checking 20% of the time. So for me:

Q10 is 12*0.9*0.2=2.16
22 is 6*0.65=3.9


[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect, this is how you should be doing it. Note that this results ends up with 22 almost twice as likely as QTo. That means that if we were only using these two hands (every other hand was 0% likely), that in PokerStove you could do something such as allow 4 combos of 22, and only 2 combos of QT (gotta be careful that one of your combos of QT doesn't conflict with the board, or PT will automatically not count it, and you will end up with 1 combo).

The best thing about doing stuff like this, is that you can start to argue about hand ranges more indepth. For example, I highly disagree with your estimation of him checking the turn 20% of the time. He is super passive, and will check far more than this IMO. I would rather not argue about this right now though, but in future threads, this is the kind of stuff we should be debating.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your point that we should be a little more thourough in our analysis but its quite difficult with so little information. Our answers differ greatly because of the preflop assumption. :/

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it can be difficult, and all I can say is that do as best you can. Our assumptions are different, but that is great. Hand reading is huge, and I currently suck at it. If I think someone plays a certain hand only 10% of the time, but then someone else comes along and says that the hand could be played like that 75% of the time, I really need to think about that. Our answers will be differing, but we can at least debate on specific points. Once we are in relative agreement about ranges, PokerStove becomes so much more valueble.