|
|
#11
09-01-2005, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Barron\'s Article.
That page IS describing a loose table with that many players USUALLY in on the flop. In the live $5-$10 - $20-$40 games, I think it more often than not fits that definition of "loose" rather than "tight."
Plus, in the hand, I did meet the criteria that I quoted out of the gate: "In loose games in late position, if at least four people have entered the pot in front of you, against a raise, typically reraise KQ suited." — Small Stakes Hold 'em, p. 83 Agreed, though, this situation is more true of a live game at these stakes than an online one. Maybe when I'm 50 and I've seriously played for another pair of decades I'll have a more personal bag of tricks, for now, I'm looking at some of these "textbook" applications that turn into very decision-oriented hands. Fortunately, we have the best textbooks going, as Mason, David, Ed, and the rest of the 2+2 gang haven't let me down thusfar... Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com 
|
|
#12
09-10-2005, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
I gotta say I loooved the way you played the hand. Got some real gambol in ya. And of course mathmatically it was (barely) correct. From a literary point of view, the story would have been a better lesson if our hero didn't make the hand in the end. Then again, I never cared for happy endings...
|
|
#13
09-10-2005, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
[ QUOTE ]
I gotta say I loooved the way you played the hand. Got some real gambol in ya. And of course mathmatically it was (barely) correct. [/ QUOTE ] I'm glad you enjoyed it. Imagine making 1000 "barely correct" decisions that each add a little to your profit. Then 10,000. It's all about +EV'ness. Even if ... on the edge. (okay, that was forced) Let me know what you think about the next On the Edge installment coming up in just a few weeks... Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#14
09-10-2005, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
I thought your example illustrated a point opposite of the one you made. I thought it showed the error of raising pre-flop with a dominated hand because it can trap you for so many more bets post-flop.
Yes, building the pot pre-flop will cause people to chase when you hit a good flop, but the bad players would've chased anyways and you want them to chase with worse odds. One of the greatest advantage a good player has is that he can outplay his opponents after the flop. But by making the pot so big, the bad and good players will now be playing pretty similarly. You happened to have gotten lucky in the hand, but in most cases, I think you would've preferred to have not raised pre-flop so that you don't feel obliged to chase a gut-shot for 2 bets cold on the turn.
|
|
#15
09-11-2005, 09:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
[ QUOTE ]
I think you would've preferred to have not raised pre-flop so that you don't feel obliged to chase a gut-shot for 2 bets cold on the turn. [/ QUOTE ] If we want to be results-oriented as to what the flop was and knowing my competition, I would rather fold pre-flop. In this situation, though, the key to the hand is the barrage of cold-callers. I don't care if I have a weaker hand than my opponent pre-flop IF there is enough dead money in the pot and if I believe I'll make better decisions then them after the flop -- especially easy when I have position. With the hand being a live game at these stakes, remember, the competition is softer than the similar stakes online. Regardless if the original raiser has solid standards, while that would make my decision different if it was folded to me, I believed (and still do) that you raise this pre-flop every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It's all about making the +EV plays. Even given the read on the early competition, that's what this is. PLUS, something people always forget when you put a range of hands on an opponent, they might sometimes deviate from that range ... for whatever reason. Not always - but that has to factor in, at least to a degree. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#16
09-11-2005, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
[ QUOTE ]
This pot wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't raised king-queen suited, which built the pot to a size where I could play a draw, whereas I wouldn't have had the odds otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] I just want to point out that this is a very bad way to think about it. Raising so that you have odds to draw later is not correct. Raising when you know you're dominated by all but one of the raiser's hands is not correct.
|
|
#17
09-11-2005, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
I raised because I believed (and still do) that raising in that spot is correct.
Because I did, it gave me the odds to draw correctly -- whereas if I hadn't've, I wouldn't've.... How do you believe that is not correct? Worrying that one player might "dominate" me when the action is what it is, the money in the pot is what it is, my position is what it is, and my knowing I can lay down post-flop as I do, doing differently (or, THINKING differently) is almost bordering on being weak-tight... Perhaps still profitable, but not +EV to what it should be. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#18
09-11-2005, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
[ QUOTE ]
I raised because I believed (and still do) that raising in that spot is correct. Because I did, it gave me the odds to draw correctly -- whereas if I hadn't've, I wouldn't've.... How do you believe that is not correct? Worrying that one player might "dominate" me when the action is what it is, the money in the pot is what it is, my position is what it is, and my knowing I can lay down post-flop as I do, doing differently (or, THINKING differently) is almost bordering on being weak-tight... Perhaps still profitable, but not +EV to what it should be. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com [/ QUOTE ] You stated yourself that the PF raiser's hand range was AA-TT, AK, and AQs. Yes the hand is profitable to play in this spot, but not for a reraise. Putting in four bets preflop with a hand that is dominated by almost all of the PFR's holdings is not correct. You most likely have to catch a straight or flush to win this hand, and KQ suited just will not do this often enough. I don't believe the statement I quoted was correct because you can't justify your reraise by saying that it gave you odds to draw later.
|
|
#19
09-11-2005, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
Again: the key is the people in the middle and their card selection.
If it's me vs. Guy 1, that's another story. If it's me vs. Guy 1 + a lot of others ... we have this story. I think I had just the right number of people to make this reraise correct; even one fewer people in the middle and then I'd 100% agree on the call rather than reraise. As the cliche goes, it's a 7 card game, and even if one guy may have me dominated, I still rather get the extra bets out of the dead money in the middle. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#20
09-12-2005, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barron\'s Article.
[ QUOTE ]
doing differently (or, THINKING differently) is almost bordering on being weak-tight [/ QUOTE ] This borders on an ad hominem argument. You want to call so you must be weak-tight. Whenever I see "weak-tight" used in poker analysis I cringe. It never adds anything to the logical force of an argument. [ QUOTE ] and my knowing I can lay down post-flop as I do [/ QUOTE ] This is actually a point in favor of just calling. The preflop 3-bet would be more beneficial if you were a compulsive chaser. Clearly we want to play this hand. That means the basic pot and implied odds aren't really an issue because we are determined to see the flop somehow. 3-betting instead of calling affects your profit in two ways: 1. You are getting 5-1 odds on the extra preflop action. This needs to be compared with your chance of eventually winning the hand. In theory you are good here if you win more than 1/6 of the time, but of course an adjustment needs to be made for the times you are capped by a dominating hand. This aspect of the preflop 3-bet clearly is more favorable to the chaser. He wins more than you do precisely because he cannot get away from his hand. He is more likely to meet the 1/6 standard for making the preflop reraise profitable. 2. You may change your postflop profits. Here the preflop 3-bet penalizes you in a way that does not affect a compulsive chaser. Consider what happened in the actual hand. You called multiple bets on the flop at 3-1 direct odds. You certainly don't have anywhere near a 1/4 chance to win so you lost money on every bet your opponents forced you to call. You didn't really have a choice because giving up your equity in this big pot is even more costly than accepting the bad odds on the flop bets. Now consider what happens if you just call preflop. You're still getting 3-1 direct odds on flop bets where you don't have a 1/4 chance to win. The chaser will not be influenced by the smaller pot. He will call the flop action and lose just as much on these 3-1 flop bets as he did when he 3-bet preflop. As a good player you have a better option. You don't have to suffer the full loss of calling bets at 3-1 odds. Your equity in the smaller pot is worth less than the loss involved in calling the flop bets (the popular pot/implied odds computation is a quick method for doing this comparison). Using your skill to fold allows you to save yourself some money. By 3-betting preflop you lost the opportunity to save yourself some money by folding when the weak flop hit. Your skill in folding trouble hands postflop is a reason to just call preflop. The compulsive chaser of course does not need to concern himself with this issue because he isn't going to fold anyway. 3-betting is not costing him any opportunity.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
