Slotboom on SSHE

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you familiar with large number theory? If not there is nothing anyone can do to "prove" to you it works. There is a reason the stronger posters here preach a 300BB minimum bankroll to play at a given limit level.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pink platypus has two lips.

[Ed Miller]

I'm not going to reply to your other points because others have done so. But I'll address your twodimes methodology: it just plain doesn't work. Remember, you are SELECTING hands for your opponents. You have selected hands that are particularly bad for our holding and, moreover, far too generous to your opponents. They usually won't have hands nearly as good as the ones you've given them.

Bottom line is, you must be EXTREMELY careful when you want to use twodimes simulations like this to prove a point. It's not to say that I've never used them, because I have, but yours are all messed up.

[B 1329 O]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, you are SELECTING hands for your opponents. You have selected hands that are particularly bad for our holding and, moreover, far too generous to your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I have SELECTED the hands. They were KK, 3h4h, 4c5c, 9cQd. I think that the selection of hands is quite realistic. KK is playable according to SSHE, yes that is a monster but if you look at the rest of my post you will see that I removed it from consideration here:
Here is a 4 way pot with the strongest hand folded:
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=997301
pokenum -h 3h 4h - 5c 4c - qd 9c - 3c 2c -- qc 8c 2h
Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing Qc 8c 2h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
4h 3h 63 7.68 756 92.20 1 0.12 0.077
5c 4c 240 29.27 579 70.61 1 0.12 0.293
9c Qd 422 51.46 398 48.54 0 0.00 0.515
3c 2c 94 11.46 726 88.54 0 0.00 0.115

I thought that I was extreamly stingy with the hand selection that I used.

4h3h and 5c4c are identified in SSHE as "Junk Suited Hands"(pg. 72) and you state that these hands are to weak for even a bet on the button. You suggest that they should never be played unless it is from the blinds. My point that you can not over come the variance of random hands played to the river by several players. Let me further quote your book as I think that it makes my point better than I ever could, again from page 72, "Playing junk suited hands is an extremely common error, among the most common in small stakes games. These hands simply do not win enough. Avoid them." THESE HANDS SHOULD BE IN THE MUCK, BUT PUT ENOUGH OF THEM IN THE GAME BY ENOUGH PLAYERS THEY ARE DEVISTATING.

Looking at your recomendations for 9cQd on page 74 you call this hand a "Junk Offsuit Hand" and your recomendations are the same. Don't play it unless you are in the blinds.

How can selecting some of the weakest hands in holdem be "bad for our holding"?
[ QUOTE ]
You have selected hands that are particularly bad for our holding and, moreover, far too generous to your opponents. They usually won't have hands nearly as good as the ones you've given them.


[/ QUOTE ]
I must think that for you to make this statement "They usually won't have hands nearly as good as the ones you've given them." would indicate, not that you think those hands are good,but that you really did not read my post with any attention.

2c3c is a crap hand and should not be played unless you see the flop for free and it hits you hard with 4c5c6c or 4c5cAc. I don't have to consult twodimes to know that this is not going to happen this Tuesday. If you have 3-5 other players playing to the river then even a pat straight is almost worthless. I am not saying that it is a totaly worthless hand only that as a draw or a low pair hand I would be embarassed to show it even if it won.

You may be correct about my use of two dimes. Can you suggest a tool we can run the numbers on this hand with?

I also think that my thought that it is impossible to over come the variance of random hand selection by several players is valid. Just the number of live hands at showdown dilutes the strength of any hand. Do you care to offer your thoughts on this?

[B 1329 O]

Max, your replys are welcome and in no way arrogant.
[ QUOTE ]
Since you just registered on 2+2 you have a choice. You can participate here with an open mind and try to learn more about poker. If you do this, you will surely improve your results. Your other option is to stubbornly stick to your pre-conceptions in which case you will continue to be frustrated by this game. Its up to you.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I see the game as explainable. I do not accept concepts on faith alone very well.
[ QUOTE ]
Just the fact that you don't want people to call you with cheese when you raise UTG with AA shows that you have no idea.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I like it when I am raised holding AA and sometimes I call UTG if I know that there is a good chance that someone else will raise it for me and I can reraise. What just burns me is when I hit trips, straights, FH and get my bell rung by clowns playing cheese that should have folded. Yes I know that that is where the $$$ comes from, when the clowns draw dead or don't hit. I just think that the if enough clowns go to showdown with random hands that variance becomes to large to bear.

Show me the error of my ways.

Thanks!

[turnipmonster]

when X clowns go to showdown you are getting X to 1 on your money. I am not sure why everyone new to poker has this same error in thought. aces hold up more than their fair share in a 10 way showdown, and 9 people calling your bets and raises the entire way means your opponents collectively put 9 dollars in the pot for every dollar you invest. note that your aces will win more than 1 in 9 times. you will win less showdowns when lots of people see the river, but you will win far bigger pots when your aces do hold up, and they will hold up more than their fair share of the time. this is how you make money playing poker.

--turnipmonster

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
I must think that for you to make this statement "They usually won't have hands nearly as good as the ones you've given them." would indicate, not that you think those hands are good,but that you really did not read my post with any attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got through your post just fine. If you have 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], then it is devastating to you if someone else has 5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. It is in that respect that I said that you assigned the opponents far better hands than they will usually have. If you run around evaluating how strong a hand is by assuming that your opponents always have you dominated, overflushed, or otherwise pinned in a corner, things are going to look a lot less rosy than they actually are.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that my thought that it is impossible to over come the variance of random hand selection by several players is valid. Just the number of live hands at showdown dilutes the strength of any hand. Do you care to offer your thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that you don't take this the wrong way, but your understanding of hold 'em leaves a lot to be desired. If you want to improve at the game, I suggest you read and reread my books and then start posting on the Microlimits and Small Stakes forums.

I know you question somewhat fundamentally the concepts in my books, but I can assure you with the greatest confidence that your concerns are illusory.

[Easy E]

<font color="green">thought that it is impossible to over come the variance of random hand selection by several players is valid. Just the number of live hands at showdown dilutes the strength of any hand.</font>

This statement is the key indicator that you need to upgrade your knowledge about poker in general. This one reinforces that one:

<font color="blue">They were KK, 3h4h, 4c5c, 9cQd. I think that the selection of hands is quite realistic. [and] I thought that I was extreamly stingy with the hand selection that I used.</font>

Here's a starting hint- poker is about winning MONEY, not winning pots.

Short version, your statement is NOT valid, or skill would not be able to dominate. If I find a game where small unsuited connectors and other weak offsuit hands are played in volume, especially for raises, I will happily camp out there and ride the variance waves to eventual victory, however long that may take.

Try to let go of your commitment to your cause, Young Jedi, and you will find the Force flowing to you.

[jediael]

Ah yes, I see exactly what you mean.

I own a roulette table in a casino, and eventhough I do have a mathematical edge of 3% I cannot win because there are so many players, someone always gets lucky [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I am truly doomed!

[Cooker]

Giving someone a higher flush draw is what kills the winning percentage of this hand. Do you know how likely in 5 random hands there will be another 2 flush in your suit? Putting this hand in every time is making it look like the hand is a consistent loser. Try putting in the other 2 flush the correct percentage of times and see how you do. You will be against another 2 flush in 5 random hands roughly (very roughly and erring high) 22% of the time. This is high since I simply took the percent of being up against another 2 flush HU and multiplied by 5 which grossly overestimates the chance that multiple people will have 2 flushes against you. In playing, you will see the chances of a higher 2 flush come down even more since people aren't playing random hands and 95 even suited doesn't get played all that often. I would say in playing, you are going to see the higher flush closer to around 15-20%, but this is pure speculation. In your selection of hands it is present 100% of the time which is a gross overestimate.

[MicroBob]

Nice analysis and I agree.


I am also very impressed with Ed's responses to the Rolf article and also his efforts to help out the B1329 guy.