where the hell am i?!

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
You are actually getting 9:1 on your call assuming everyone else calls the cap. You say that someone is likely raising with flush and straight draws, top pair, or a ragged two pair YET because someone MIGHT have a set so you should fold getting 9:1. This is weak/tight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Be careful with using the word "MIGHT" to exclusively support your own argument. "Might" also works against you. Is this "weak tight?" I think it's realistic. It does, however, seem like you are rounding numbers in your favor. This is not "weak tight," but probably errs in the other direction.

I'm not sure what "weak tight" means anymore anyway, since the concept has been *ahem* thrown around so loosely as of late to make it a concept without much meaning.

In any event, taking into consideration what "might" be means looking realistically at a situation. Discounting possibilities outlining unfavorable situations as "weak tight" emphasizing favorable ones is fuzzy thinking. I attempted to lay out pros and cons. If I did so inacurrately so be it. Maybe I did. In my opinion, considering the possibilities of sets is realistic, and scoffing at such possibilities is not only wrong but a leak.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I also notice a tendency to throw around the term "weak-tight" without offering insight into why a certain line is allegedly weak tight. Some posters (and I am not trying to single anyone out here) just throw the term around irresponsibly. Seriously, this needs to stop. It does not further anyone's poker knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding an overpair on the flop is generally weak-tight. It's even more weak-tight when it's capped by a maniac.

[ QUOTE ]
I think a fold is in order in this hand, but it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that close unless you have some tight reads along with the play. Assuming the a 3-bet flop indicates at least two pair or a set is weak-tight. (You *MUST* ignore the flop cap when you evaluate the strength of your hand because it's a maniac.)

If you're ahead, you're getting something like 40-55% equity on this hand, depending on what the other players hold. If you're behind, you're getting something like...

17% against two pair
12% against a set
5 % against a straight

The pot is laying you close to 9:1, ie you need have a 10% edge to make a profitable call. Go play with the twodimes simulator and see what happens when you tweak the other hands.

This is why laying it down is a weak-tight play.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
(You *MUST* ignore the flop cap when you evaluate the strength of your hand because it's a maniac.)

[/ QUOTE ]
And we all know that maniacs never get hands.

EDIT: I'm not trying to belittle, but I think this points out a tend on this forum lately that encourages reckless play. Like rounding up your odds to 9:1. It's closer to 6:1., 8:1 if the others complete the cap (a reasonable but not certain assumptions).

I tried to lay out my reasoning above. If you dissagree with my assessments then address them. You essentially just called me weak tight. I am skeptical about the evidence you used to justify this claim:

[ QUOTE ]
17% against two pair
12% against a set
5 % against a straight

[/ QUOTE ]
You are not up against one opponent. You can hit your miracle set on the turn, and still loose to the flush or straight on the river.

I stand by my statement about the term "weak tight" being thrown around loosely.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(You *MUST* ignore the flop cap when you evaluate the strength of your hand because it's a maniac.)

[/ QUOTE ]
And we all know that maniacs never get hands.

EDIT: I'm not trying to belittle, but I think this points out a tend on this forum lately that encourages reckless play. Like rounding up your odds to 9:1. It's closer to 6:1., 8:1 if the others complete the cap (a reasonable but not certain assumptions).


[/ QUOTE ]

By the nature of him being a maniac, you are assuming that most of the time he doesn't have a hand. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a maniac. And this is why, at this point in the hand, you *MUST* ignore his cap when evaluating the strength of your hand. The fear of a maniac having a real hand right now is weak-tight thinking. Remember: BY DEFINITION he almost always does not have a hand.

To address the 9:1 number, if it's 6:1, you end up heads up with a maniac, and you're going to the river regardless. If it's 7:1, then it's 12.5% you need to call, and it's still a weak-tight fold. And it only gets better from there. I admit to taking the 9:1 number without thinking it through a second time. But it doesn't affect the decision very much.

[ QUOTE ]

I tried to lay out my reasoning above. If you dissagree with my assessments then address them. You essentially just called me weak tight. I am skeptical about the evidence you used to justify this claim:

[ QUOTE ]
17% against two pair
12% against a set
5 % against a straight

[/ QUOTE ]
You are not up against one opponent. You can hit your miracle set on the turn, and still loose to the flush or straight on the river.

I stand by my statement about the term "weak tight" being thrown around loosely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with your assessment. Those are legitimate fears. However, it is not enough to be afraid that you're behind right now. The question is whether it is profitable to chase because the pot is so large.

I didn't run those numbers with just one opponent. I ran them with the twodimes simulator on a variety of cases - which apparently you did not for otherwise you would have understood the origin of those numbers. The simulator gives you hot/cold equities to the river, meaning that it *includes* times when you improve but are outdrawn.

I'll include the evidence this time.

In this specific hand: 41.5% equity
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=812886
pokenum -h tc td - ac 9c - jh 8h -- 4s 5c 8c
Holdem Hi: 903 enumerated boards containing 4s 8c 5c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Tc Td 375 41.53 528 58.47 0 0.00 0.415
Ac 9c 400 44.30 503 55.70 0 0.00 0.443
Jh 8h 128 14.17 775 85.83 0 0.00 0.142

Against two pair and a flush draw w/no overs: 18.3% equity
Result
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=813303
pokenum -h tc td - 5s 8s - 9c 2c -- 4s 5c 8c
Holdem Hi: 903 enumerated boards containing 4s 8c 5c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Tc Td 165 18.27 738 81.73 0 0.00 0.183
8s 5s 455 50.39 448 49.61 0 0.00 0.504
9c 2c 283 31.34 620 68.66 0 0.00 0.313

Against two pair and a flush draw w/one over: 13.4% equity
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=813304
pokenum -h tc td - 5s 8s - ac 2c -- 4s 5c 8c
Holdem Hi: 903 enumerated boards containing 4s 8c 5c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Tc Td 118 13.07 777 86.05 8 0.89 0.134
8s 5s 407 45.07 488 54.04 8 0.89 0.454
Ac 2c 370 40.97 525 58.14 8 0.89 0.413

Against two pair and two miscellaneous hands: 22% equity
Result
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=813309
pokenum -h tc td - 5s 8s - ad 9s - 6d 2d -- 4s 5c 8c
Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing 4s 8c 5c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Tc Td 180 21.95 640 78.05 0 0.00 0.220
8s 5s 384 46.83 436 53.17 0 0.00 0.468
9s Ad 32 3.90 788 96.10 0 0.00 0.039
6d 2d 224 27.32 596 72.68 0 0.00 0.273

Against a set and two miscellaneous hands: 11.8% equity
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=813311
pokenum -h tc td - 8s 8d - ad 9s - 6d 2d -- 4s 5c 8c
Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing 4s 8c 5c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Tc Td 97 11.83 723 88.17 0 0.00 0.118
8s 8d 514 62.68 306 37.32 0 0.00 0.627
9s Ad 11 1.34 809 98.66 0 0.00 0.013
6d 2d 198 24.15 622 75.85 0 0.00 0.241

Against a set, a pair and a miscellaneous hand: 13.2% equity
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=813313
pokenum -h tc td - 4h 4d - ad 9s - 6d 8d -- 4s 5c 8c
Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing 4s 8c 5c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Tc Td 108 13.17 712 86.83 0 0.00 0.132
4d 4h 565 68.90 255 31.10 0 0.00 0.689
9s Ad 11 1.34 809 98.66 0 0.00 0.013
8d 6d 136 16.59 684 83.41 0 0.00 0.166

Yes, you *CAN* make nightmarish scenarios. Give someone a straight, a flush draw, and two overcards. But you need to remember that you're averaging over a very large number of cases, and most of those cases are not nightmares.

[djr]

[ QUOTE ]
The pot is laying you close to 9:1, ie you need have a 10% edge to make a profitable call. Go play with the twodimes simulator and see what happens when you tweak the other hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

The pot is giving you approx 7:1, if you assume all call you're risking 3 more bets to win 27, 9:1. fine

I played around with the simulator. I gave each person what I thought were reasonable holdings that would be bettable (even the maniac) and didn't give them counterfieted hands. If you assume no one has a straight already, you're going to win 7-9% of the time. That with giving your opponents a flush draw, gut straight draw, two pair or trips and an underpair (e.g. pocket 9s), and I mixed in a couple overcards to your pair of tens as well. If someone has the straight you only win around 2% of the time. If there are no straights yet and no one has a set or two pair you win 20% of the time, but I see this as the most unrealistic possibility given the betting.

Let's take it on the high side and say you win 7% of the time. That's like 13:1, you don't have the expressed odds to call, so folding is by no means weak/tight. Using implied odds you might be good enough to see the turn.

[djr]

first, you've got 4 opponents. You should do the simulations with 4 people.

Second, these guys thought their hands were strong enough to raise with. You need to assume at least 3 reasonable drawing hands (if not made hands) and give the maniac a random hand. Your simulations are on the nice side of things, not very realistic IMHO.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I played around with the simulator. I gave each person what I thought were reasonable holdings that would be bettable (even the maniac) and didn't give them counterfieted hands... That with giving your opponents a flush draw, gut straight draw, two pair or trips and an underpair (e.g. pocket 9s), and I mixed in a couple overcards to your pair of tens as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mistake #1: "even the maniac"
Mistake #2: "Didn't give them counterfieted hands" - It's rarely the case that all possible draws are out there and are all fully live.

[ QUOTE ]
If there are no straights yet and no one has a set or two pair you win 20% of the time, but I see this as the most unrealistic possibility given the betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way off. In Hero's hand, the equity is up in the 40% range (against the flush draw with an overcard, and top pair with an overcard). This is what I mean by making up nightmarish scenarios.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
first, you've got 4 opponents. You should do the simulations with 4 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not always. Someone may drop, someone may call the flop bet with crap only to fold on the turn. You can run some more if you want. I've run enough of these for the day and I have class in 10 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, these guys thought their hands were strong enough to raise with. You need to assume at least 3 reasonable drawing hands (if not made hands) and give the maniac a random hand. Your simulations are on the nice side of things, not very realistic IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

MP1 is fishy and didn't raise = could be as weak as an overcard and a backdoor straight draw. You need to remember your reads and you can't make the mistake of giving everyone live draws every time (this is weak-tight thinking). A "made" hand could be as little as bottom pair. "Realism" is only with respect to the abilities of the *OTHER* players, not how *YOU* would play it. There's a very good reason that the micros are such profitable games.

[djr]

what I did may be on the darker side of things, but I think your sims were too full of sunshine. People don't tend to 3 bet with nothing. And regards to mistake #1, I did give him various hands, reasonable ones and otherwise they don't tend to alter things that much if you give the other 3 people hands worth raising, 3-betting, and coldcalling 3bets.

[ QUOTE ]
In Hero's hand, the equity is up in the 40% range

[/ QUOTE ]
That's with the two hands that showed down. Now figure in two other hands (one of which should be reasonable enough to raise the flop), that equity drops quick, and you can't discount maniac just because he's a maniac (he could just as easily have a 67 as KJ). Best case his equity on the flop is gonna be around 25%. But we're not looking for best case, we're looking for realistic.

In the end, calling the flop is marginal at best. Folding it is not weak/tight.

[Greg J]

Hey Aaron:

I appreciate the analyses and time you have put into this argument. I did play around with the two dimes site, and it does say that when you are behind to a set and either a OESD and a flush draw you are WAY behind. This is not, IMO a nightmare scenario.

Second, I think you, again, discount the maniac too quickly. My position is that maniacs have cards sometimes and you have to account for that appropriately, which means that you don't let thier actions guide your thinking, but bets from maniacs still affect odds. Your position, as far as I can tell, is that maniacs never have cards and that therefore you should not take them into consideration. I do think you have mischaracterized my argument about our friend Mr Maniac, though not willfully -- I am not accusing you of being disengenious or dishonest, just mistaken. The maniacs bet does not mean he has a hand, but it does mean he just altered your odds to call. Assuming he does not have a hand (which I will concede for a moment, though I think it's reckless to assume he does not) and villian one has a set, and villian one has a flush draw, which I think is not only reasonable, but likely, you have ~7% equity. Assuming an OESD and an overpair to Hero's tens, you are getting around 12%. Against a made straight and top pair you are getting ~8%.

Also, in this hand, overpairs are a possibility which you have totally ignored. Yes, someone can well limp with QQ, KK or AA -- they fo it all the time. Does this have to dominate your thinking? Certainly not. Is it one of many potential variables? Yes. They are one of many possibilities, along with a set, that you have to consider. To what degree should these possibilities guide our thinking? That is the prudent question.

I think you are tending to round numbers in your favor. I have leaned back and forth on this hand, but no matter what try to remain open minded in my analyses. This boils down to a "way ahead - way behind" scenario. HU, easy call. But as the number of opponents increases, the chances of you being behind to a made hand increases exponentially as there are bets, raises and reraises. Compound this with the possibility of being outdrawn, there are too many ways you loose this hand.