What if you knew everyone's hole cards? (continued) - Page 2

#11 10-08-2005, 01:04 AM

Enough people from other tables will be lucky enough to make it impossible for you to have 90% of the chips by the time you get to the end. And once you get to the end the M's would be low enough not to give you enough room to outplay anyone to the river. You would have to be moving in a lot pre-flop which will turn the game into a crapshoot. If you have a AKs and an opponent moves in with 65s, you would just have to take a gamble as a 1.7 to 1 fave which is still a crapshoot. The OP is right, you are all wrong. Your chances of winning will only probably improve 5 times if you can see the hole cards of all of your opponent.

Hopefully, the world's greatest poker player (who is a North American from farther north) will have his book out soon so you won't be so that you won't be so misinformed anymore.

SCfuji · #12 10-08-2005, 01:12 AM

there is no stopping an average player from getting 50% of the chips in play. you would have to lose about 4 of those 1.7 to 1 "flips" to the SAME person to pretty much get busted. but you know what ill know when i they have 65s because then i can just wait for A5 and destroy the chump and get even more chips.

paperboyNC · #13 10-08-2005, 01:58 AM

As a lot of people say, using this info to bluff is risky in general. If I could see everyone's hole cards, I'd be passive in general to keep the pots small, but be aggressive when I knew my opponents can't call.

A great example:

I have 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in the big blind. MP player raised with K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Flop comes A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. MP has a deep stack so I check-raise all-in. He can't call.

Also, most in person tournaments have very deep stacks through-out and never have the king of push or fold play you see online (except from the short-stacks).

benkahuna · #14 10-08-2005, 09:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]

SUMMARY OF MY THOUGHTS: If we were talking about live play, you would of course be unbeatable over any but short time frames. In a tournament with a lot (hundreds or more) of opponents, the escalating blinds and the finite number of hands played will eventually force you to play big pots as a less-than-overwhelming favorite against others whose stacks are relevant to you. It still seems to me that knowing the hole cards will increase your probability by a factor of around five, so that an above-average player might win 10% of the time and a great player (say 5x average without magic powers) might win 20 - 25 % of the time.

Bob Feduniak

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you pull the factor of 5 from the same magical hat that gave you the ability to know people's hole cards?

You feel like people didn't hear you or something because they didn't agree with you.

I feel like you just didn't like their answers so you're taking another crack at it.

I don't think you're convincing other people, you're not convincing me, and making two posts about it rather than containing all commentary about it in the first post seems pretty unnecessary.

#15 10-08-2005, 11:31 AM

Re benkahuna's post at 9:11 am today:

"Did you pull the factor of 5 from the same magical hat that gave you the ability to know people's hole cards?"

Yes. That's why I said it was my instinct.

"You feel like people didn't hear you or something because they didn't agree with you."

No. They read my opinion and most very clearly disagreed.

"I feel like you just didn't like their answers so you're taking another crack at it."

No. The responses just made me think I should give more detail re why I think otherwise (see below). I didn't dislike anything. Rather, I liked the fact that so many people took the time to respond.

"I don't think you're convincing other people, you're not convincing me, and making two posts about it rather than containing all commentary about it in the first post seems pretty unnecessary."

I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm not at all convinced myself. I just think it's an interesting question.

Re your final comment: I gave no rationale in my first post so that it would be short and not waste others' time (or my own) if the responses were that I hadn't done a good archive search and that this question had already been dealt with ad nauseum. I'm not very experienced in newsgroups, so maybe my etiquette wasn't good and this was the wrong approach.

MicroBob · #16 10-08-2005, 01:14 PM

2 threads on the same subject is typically frowned upon so starting a new thread was mostly unnecessary.

That said, I didn't have a problem with you starting a new thread and thought it was mostly okay.
You're obviously being quite polite and I think the previous poster's comments were a bit harsh.

#17 10-08-2005, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2 threads on the same subject is typically frowned upon so starting a new thread was mostly unnecessary.

That said, I didn't have a problem with you starting a new thread and thought it was mostly okay.
You're obviously being quite polite and I think the previous poster's comments were a bit harsh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I appreciate the information. I'm trying to climb out of the bottom quartile of knowledge re newgroups, blogs, etc.

Shoe · #18 10-08-2005, 04:18 PM

I think you would win atleast 90% of the tournaments.

- You would always know when to value bet (and vary the bet size based on how much the opponent is likely to call based on his cards -- could be all in, could be min bet).
- You could pick off 100% of the bluffs
- You would always know when to steal
- Even if you got short stacked, you'd be able to pick great times to push, making it very hard to eliminate you.

As long as you don't "gamble it up" early, I dont see how you could lose, especially if you are in a tournament where you start with deep stacks and slowly escalating blinds.

Basically, I think you should be able to build a comfortable chip lead (and maintain it) pretty easily in almost every tournament. The only times you would lose is if you decided to "gamble" with your 3:1 favorite.

pindawg · #19 10-08-2005, 04:49 PM

Folded to Hoyt Corkins in the SB.
He open pushes for 500k with <magig vision> 78o
To you in the BB with 1010 and 505k.

Lots of times I go out in tournies or severely crippled by calling allins with the best hand. This skill would be wonderful in the early and middle stages, and if used correctly should increase your stack to a point where no-one could cripple you in latter stages.

djoyce003 · #20 10-08-2005, 05:23 PM

I think you are underestimating how easy it is going to be for you to build a stack...you will likely never be all in in any situation where you could be eliminated after just a couple of hours. It's going to be easy for you to steal, and it's going to be easy for you to build your stack without having to go to showdown....you'll never take a beat like set over set, etc.

You will eventually be getting in your money as a 90% favorite sometimes, but you won't be doing this where if they get lucky you'll be eliminated.....I'd say your chances of winning the tournament are extremely high....you will never make a bad call, you'll value bet relentlessly, you'll steal all kinds of pots, etc. Barring just a terrible run of bad luck i don't see how you couldn't win almost every time.