Pot Limit Stud8 Hand from Barry Greenstein's Book

[jon_1van]

I have not read the book nor much of this thread

But does anyone not like the 750 bet? It seems too likely to push out an opponent that you do scoop. I think a 400-450 bet here would be nice. A bet of that size would be in the nether world of "is this a blocking bet? or am I trying to give you a bet you can call"

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm beginning to understand a little bit better now. Are you trying to say that no matter what the odds or the "math" says, that sometimes you just know you are beat. Even if it is 1:100 or 1:1000 against him beating you or scooping or whatever the case, you shouldn't force yourself to make the call just because the "math" says that your read is absurd? Let me know if I am way off on this [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is another example of using math poorly ::

Say you are playing NLHE with very deep stacks. You have KK. You make a standard openning bet. Some guy comes over the top of you for some rediculous amount. The question is now :: Do I call?

Well if you do some math and think "There are 1225 ways to pick 2 cards from 50 unknown cards and there are only 6 ways to be dealt AA. So thats 6/1225 or a 1:203 chance that he has AA. So I call.

But you should be thinking "He'll only make that raise with KK or AA. There is 1 way to have KK. There are 6 ways for him to have AA. That means there is a 1 in 7 chance im tied and a 6 in 7 chance I'm beaten badly...so I fold.

Notice how neglecting the actions of your opponents (and what they imply about his holding) can lead to drastically bad assumptions and actions.

[mscags]

That makes more sense now. Thanks Barry.

Scags

[Bill Murphy]

(Note: The Hero/Professor's sixth street card should be the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. There was a graphics error.)

I spent quite a bit of time last night figuring out the range of hands Barry would start with, then see the river, then call or raise with. These stud hand analyses are very complex as you know and very easy to get wrong just by quick figuring. See Johnny Chan's comments about the famous Frenchy hand in Esquire.

FWIW based on likely (non-scoop or three-quartering)hands he'd raise all in with, I make Barry having the low diamonds anywhere from 10-1 to 50-1, not the 1000-1 the prof threw out. He might have done the 3 out of 41 combination quickly in his head or something similar like number of possible low cards left. I had to stretch to find 1000 hands Barry'd call to the river with, i.e. Jack-ten high flushes after starting w/8-6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in the hole, etc.

Actually, If Barry'll call a bet with a 7-5 low(there's one we all missed) after missing a flush/wheel draw, say, the professor has a clear river bet, and if he'll raise with a wheel(esp if he has the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ) and/or a A high flush and worse low then the prof must call the all in raise.

It's prolly a bit close in no qualifier EV wise to bet out w/the unimproved 6-straight, and the size of your stacks is a big consideration IMO. I bet the prof was devastated by this hand and that Barry'd've been too had he been shown a wheel & AK flush. I don't think its an accident Barry still remembers this hand after 30 years. You just hate to have an "outlier" win in big bet then lose it all at once. Of course, that's also how you can have a mega-outlier win.

If Prof catches an A or 7 on the river he has an easy bet because he now has lots of hands to quarter BG. I also think he has an easy bet(& call if BG raises) in PL 8 or better. He did get unlucky and did not play the hand badly at all. Brutal.

It was very educational, albeit time consuming, working it all by hand. I recommend everyone give it a try. Obviously you can't cover everything. I assumed the professor had no diamonds, and that his river card and the other players exposed cards(six) were all irrelevant.

Remember, in stud you have(at least I think you have) to do the down card combos in groups of 2 & 1. Example, there are 118 ways for Barry to have a wheel, not 36. My reasoning: Barry would've played (A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img])board(7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]) a lot differently than (2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img])board(A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]). It's different even though it's the same! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

You prolly all knew that. Or maybe I'm dead wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Don't think it changes the analysis much. Very educational working these stud hands out by, er, hand.

I'm prolly gonna be offline for quite awhile. Ya'll take care now. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
See Johnny Chan's comments about the famous Frenchy hand in Esquire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there someway you could show me this article?

[bigredlemon]

If prof's 6th street card is 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], then on 6 he has K high for low and a pair of sixes. If he bricks again on the river, It would be an easy fold to any kind of raise as he's stealing with nothing.

[jayheaps]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero's mistake this hand wasn't calling the raise, it was betting the river in the first place. Given the way the hand played out, the only hand he could possibly be extracting value from is a very unlikely unimproved trips (and quite possibly not even then). Does he think his opponent will ever call the river with a 7 or fold a 6. The problem here is that given his opponent's likely handrange, there are many cards he could catch that give him the 1-way nuts that he could freeroll checkraise to try and blow hero of his half of the pot.

Obviously, every bet must have a purpose either as a value bet or as bluff, but in PL games (particularly split games) the reasons for betting must be carefully weighed against the consequences of facing a big raise and get put in tough spot. Here, given villains range of 333 234 or A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] X [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], there are more than enough river cards give villain the 1-way (virtual) nuts to mandate a call of the big raise. Hero is forced to put a whole bunch of money in now hoping to get 1/2 the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I have played pot limit stud when i lived in london and this is a point experienced players understand that novices don't in a big bet game. It is also the biggest difference between limit and pot limit stud.

Admittedly, though, if the Prof checked, Barry would like be betting on a larger range of hands.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm beginning to understand a little bit better now. Are you trying to say that no matter what the odds or the "math" says, that sometimes you just know you are beat. Even if it is 1:100 or 1:1000 against him beating you or scooping or whatever the case, you shouldn't force yourself to make the call just because the "math" says that your read is absurd? Let me know if I am way off on this [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That may also be true, but that's not what I'm saying. The point is that math doesn't apply the way people use it in poker, once someone looks at their cards. Once viewed, there is always some action (betting, calling, etc.) or there is some reaction (tells). Cards are no longer random. Even if you can determine a range of hands, the probability will not be evenly distributed across that set of hands. Starting hand strategies are mathematical in nature. After people look at their cards, poker is a much more psychological game than mathematical.

On the hand in question, I guess I might have made that raise with a big flush or a wheel, but the odds were certainly less that 10 to 1 against me having a low flush, given how much money that was at the time.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm beginning to understand a little bit better now. Are you trying to say that no matter what the odds or the "math" says, that sometimes you just know you are beat. Even if it is 1:100 or 1:1000 against him beating you or scooping or whatever the case, you shouldn't force yourself to make the call just because the "math" says that your read is absurd? Let me know if I am way off on this [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That may also be true, but that's not what I'm saying. The point is that math doesn't apply the way people use it in poker, once someone looks at their cards. Once viewed, there is always some action (betting, calling, etc.) or there is some reaction (tells). Cards are no longer random. Even if you can determine a range of hands, the probability will not be evenly distributed across that set of hands. Starting hand strategies are mathematical in nature. After people look at their cards, poker is a much more psychological game than mathematical.

On the hand in question, I guess I might have made that raise with a big flush or a wheel, but the odds were certainly less that 10 to 1 against me having a low flush, given how much money that was at the time.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm strictly an NL HE player, so this may not apply to the game (or the times), but I think if a similar situation came up in NL/PL, most people would go with check/calling the river. It would induce the Villain to bet out with more hands, but this is Stud8.

I'm just not sure what he was trying to accomplish with his river bet, looking over the action it looks like it was almost a pot-sized bet. Seems like he was just asking to take the pot or split it with the nut low or flush.

Then again, I don't know the stud8 strategy or how advanced the poker strategy was back then.

----------

I definetly do agree that the prof's math was terrible, I've had a friend call me on the river with a pair of queens once because his reasoning was that the odds of my two random cards pairing or getting the possible straight were so little, that most of the time I'd be holding two random unpaired cards. Mind you, I was the pre-flop raiser [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I still think Prof would have had to call, but it was definetly not a 1000:1 against, more likely you were taking 1/2 of it.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
but I still would probably bet the professor's hand, even though a check could induce a bluff. You often get paid off by a player who thinks his weak high, e.g., a pair on the river, might get half the pot.

The people who think check is right seem to be result merchants to me.



[/ QUOTE ]

Barry,

How often are you (or any other good player for that matter) calling a pot-sized bet from 3-wheel cards on the river in the hopes of winning the 1/2 the pot with a pair.

The reason I think a check on the river is right is that I assume you would checkraise the river big if you caught the K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (or any wheel or 6 high straight if you started with 2345) in addition to your scooping hands in attempt to blow your opponent off 1\2 the pot. I don't think that anyone would argue that potting a smooth 7 with no high on the river would be right here, and given your board and your call vs. his board on 6th, I don't think the 2 hands are all that different. I think that bet is hard-pressed to extract value on the river against a good player and it could easily open the door to a nasty high varience situation.

[Bill Murphy]

Oops. You have to also change the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] the prof has down to the 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Prof's exact hole cards aren't revealed in the book, BG just sez he had the straight 6. I was just guessin' based on the (incorrect) graphics.