blind war w/ two great players

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
69, 67, 65 etc are few whiffs that P2 can have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mightn't he bet the turn with those hands pretty often?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'm more inclined to bet this turn with a draw than a made hadn like p2's. Is that wrong?

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]

you guys need to get out of your little box.

if somebody raises with the correct frequency on the turn, what is your ev by betting....ZERO!!! if he's doing it correctly then it doesn't matter wtf you do, fold, call because its worth 0 to you.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely wrong, and is based on a faulty interpretation of game theory. The fact that your opponent plays the turn perfectly doesn't mean that he can reduce your EV of betting to zero. You have two cards, and there are four more cards on the board. Given a sufficiently strong hand, it doesn't matter what your opponent does. His policy certainly affects the EV of your policy, but if your hand is sufficiently strong, whatever he does will still leave you with +EV.

1800GAMBLER provided a simple counterexample (top set) to your claim above.

[NLSoldier]

Since when is BK considered a great player [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you guys need to get out of your little box.

if somebody raises with the correct frequency on the turn, what is your ev by betting....ZERO!!! if he's doing it correctly then it doesn't matter wtf you do, fold, call because its worth 0 to you.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely wrong, and is based on a faulty interpretation of game theory. The fact that your opponent plays the turn perfectly doesn't mean that he can reduce your EV of betting to zero. You have two cards, and there are four more cards on the board. Given a sufficiently strong hand, it doesn't matter what your opponent does. His policy certainly affects the EV of your policy, but if your hand is sufficiently strong, whatever he does will still leave you with +EV.

1800GAMBLER provided a simple counterexample (top set) to your claim above.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes he did. and ironically i was in a box..the box of this hand, or rather, marginal hands that are not top set, any set, two pair, 1pair +huge draw...3rd pair makes the claim correct or thereabouts it starts to be correct.

-Barron

[mosta]

I think the reasoning here gets lost in the complications. it's apparent that it's just a rough draft (eg, immediate pot odds are 8:1, not 7:1, and price of calling bets atw is 11:5, not 9:3), so it's not meant to be a definitive statement. the flaw in the argument, it seems to me, is that the cost of calling down is only relevant when you lose, not when you win. it's not more "expensive" for you when you have the winning hand. let's drop the complication of when KK/QQ catch up (as was dropped the complication of A8 improving to win or chop)). all that matters is that we're 3.5:1 to win (or whatever it is when each side is adjusted for outdrawing). 78% we call down from the flop and lose 5 small bets. 22% of the time we call down from the flop and win something (8 + what he puts in post flop). the more the better. he can't hurt our expectation by paying us off witha worse hand. what we put in when we're winning doesn't come into the equation. this is all assuming that we decide on the flop to call or check according to his action. is that not right? did I misunderstand the point?

edit: let me try to emphasize my take this way. add one hand to his range, something random that he bluffs with, like Qs5s, or better something even farther behind. the more he will bet this all the way, the better it is for us to cover our eyes and call down, no?

[Ryno]

"The logic here is, because a player is now more likely to bet a hand that we are beating we now have to fold!"

That can't be right - when doing the showdown calculation, you have to do (probability of being beat X what that costs) : (probability of being ahead X what you make). If you want to go nuts you can tree that out with times he improves and times you improve (1 more node is plenty).

You need the guy with KK to bet all streets so that you make more when ahead. If he only bets hands beating you, your implied odds are worse and a fold more justified.

This is why you don't call down passive players.

[1800GAMBLER]

Yes, i know that.

Looking back it's not shocking to me the more money that goes in the pot with KK QQ makes us fold. The situation is pretty simple, he is beating us with more than 50% of his hands so the closer we get to putting even money in the more reason to fold.

[mosta]

I completely see how it seems reasonable, but the flaw in the argument is in trying to blend the expected investment when ahead with the expected investment when behind for a "net" expected investment. you can't do that because those two parts of the equation are of opposite sign. it makes no sense.

what we lose when we lose is a given, 5 sb's--end of story. what we put into our winning hands does not make that "worse", does not affect it at all. And, obversely, we can not decrease our losses (/can not "net" save money) with free showdowns with winning hands.

[mike l.]

i kept waiting for the part where they play great.

[Tommy Angelo]

"p1 opens in sb w/ K9"

I'd have folded.

"flop is T84. p1 bets p2 raises p1 calls."

I'd have folded.

"river is J. p1 checks p2 bets p1 calls."

I'd have folded.