|
|
#301
10-08-2004, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting No Limit Question
You know you currently have the nuts right?
|
|
#302
10-08-2004, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting No Limit Question
[ QUOTE ]
Also the whole question has a lot of problems, as if one person interprets "flush draw" as meaning flush draw and MAYBE a straight too, then the entire question changes. For me I read a flush draw and a flush draw and a straight as a straight, without any redraws or any other nonsense. If others think he meant otherwise, then the answers they get will be completely different. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. No offense to DS, but questions in which the audience can't even determine the intent of the wording are poor questions imo.
|
|
#303
10-08-2004, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting No Limit Question
[ QUOTE ]
Call, push if the board is a non pairing diamond. [/ QUOTE ] push? So you'd bet 8000+ into a pot not even at 2000? You realize that you'd only get called if you're tied there....whats the point in betting so much?
|
|
#304
10-08-2004, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting No Limit Question
[ QUOTE ]
can we at least all agree raising the turn is flat out stupid? [/ QUOTE ] not quite just yet. I still maintain that is the best information gathering play, which lets you make a move on the river to win the entire pot.
|
|
#307
10-08-2004, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting No Limit Question
A bit of math:
If you fold, we will define your net as 0 (since the money in the pot is already gone). If you call, the flush draw will call and there will be 1500 in the pot on the river. A diamond will come 9/44 of the time and you lose, for a net of -200. The other 35/44 of the time, you split a pot of 1500 and make 750, less the 200 you put in on the turn, for a net of +550. (Sometimes a non-diamond jack will come and you have to split the pot 3 ways, but we ignore this for the sake of simplicity. Likewise, we ignore the chance that the flush draw will raise on a board of AKQT, because we assume he is rational.) (35/44)*550 + (9/44)*(-200)= +396. So calling is obviously better than folding, without even accounting for the chance that you might bluff on a paired board, or something of the sort. Now, assume you go stir crazy and raise all-in. The flush draw will fold, since we assume that when David says flush draw, he does not mean flush draw + made straight. The initial bettor has a jack, and 1/3 of the time it will be the Jd. The other 2/3 of the time he must fold, fearing the Jd is in your hand. In these cases (36/54) you net +1100 (900 in the pot, plus his 200 bet). If he has the Jd he will obviously call, and we must consider subcases. I think assuming he has a suited hand 1/3 of the time is generous, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Thus, in 2/3 of the subcases (12/54) he has the naked Jd and you split the pot, for a net of +550. The remaining 1/3 of the subcases you are being freerolled. Fortunately, he only has 7 outs of the 42 cards left in the deck, so 5/54 you split the pot anyway (net of +550) and 1/54 you lose your entire stack for a net of -10000. (36/54)*1100 + (17/54)*550 + (1/54)(-10000) = +721. I'm not discounting the possibility that a lower raise might be even better, but pushing all-in is clearly better than either calling or folding. Any math errors here?
|
|
#310
10-08-2004, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll fold too
[ QUOTE ]
They are GOOD players. So the flush draw is playing good diamonds. [/ QUOTE ] A few people have made this point, and I couldn't disagree more. First off, he is last to act, so he could easily be on the button or in very LP. Secondly, good players, moreso than poor players, can get away with playing drawing hands like 5-6s early on when the blinds are small. Are you telling me you've never seen Daniel Negraneu(sp?) or Phil Ivey play a hand like 5-6s in LP early on? Would you not consider them good players? Let us not confuse the terms 'good' and 'tight'.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
