Doc AZ’s big starting pair hand strategies! New player forum topic.

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT KIND OF A F_CKING EDGE ARE YOU LOOKING TO RAISE WITH THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION WITH AN EXPLANATION OF WHY!!

[/ QUOTE ]

relax. Your question assumes that my decision to raise is based purely on whether I'm in the lead. Raising is much more complicated than that, and having read 7CSFAP, you know that as much as I do. I will tell you that I will put in a raise when I went to narrow the field, or when I'm a big favorite to win the hand.

[ QUOTE ]

With your response to Andy, it seems like we should be folding in this situation. Yes, raising makes the pot bigger, and tougher to play, but your original post made no mention of this. Let's assume this 25% figure is correct.... We expect to win this hand 25% of the time!! Pure and simple. Yes, sometimes we will have to fold a hand that eventually would have been the winner, but so would have our opponents. Big deal.


[/ QUOTE ]
Beer, remember that the 25% figure is meaningless without a corresponding effective odds figure. Yes, I will take a 25% winner in any bet where I only contribute <25% of the pot, but my point is that the situation on 3rd is not when you make this calculation. Waaaaay to many things will change the 25% and 13% situation.

[ QUOTE ]

And I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between Aces and Tens. If you don't think so, we'll play in a game where I always get Aces, and you always get tens. We'll see who wins.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't apologize. You are correct that there's a big difference between Aces and Tens. And if you give me sufficient odds, I'll gladly play my tens against your aces.

The *principles* on pages 32-33 are valid for aces regardless of the fact that 10s were used to illustrate them.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This discussion is a lot like Ed Miller's "Two OverPair Hands."

[/ QUOTE ]

I had had the same thought. grb137 doesn't play limit hold'em, so maybe bringing it into the discussion won't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and interestingly(is that a word?) enough after going through doc's post, he mentions Miller and Sklansky.

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
I have too short of an attention span to read the whole thing over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a similar complaint regarding his posts, but I seem to have offended people with it.

[BeerMoney]

GRB, u started this discussion by implying that Doc was misunderstanding current pot odds and effective odds and things..

If you want to say you should wait to raise your aces, that's well worth talking about, but that wasn't your initial argument.

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The example in hold'em is raising with hands like nut flush draws on the flop because although you are 20% to make your hand on the turn, you have (at least) 35% equity on the flop, because if you make your hand by the river you'll always win. So if these equity considerations aren't even close, like raising a nut flush draw on the flop in holdem with 4-5+ players or this aces example, implied odds couldn't possibly change the decision.
There are some HUGE misconceptions/misapplications of theory in grb's writing.


[/ QUOTE ]

While grb might have worded his response asking for an argument, much of what he replied is actually correct. Raising here with aces in last position is MUCH diffrent than jamming with the nut flush draw on a hold'em flop against several players.

Mike Emery

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, someone actually agrees with me? gaaaasp.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]


You mean, someone actually agrees with me? gaaaasp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, that's "The Donator"..

Why aren't we having fun on the 4th???????

I need a beer.

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]


GRB, u started this discussion by implying that Doc was misunderstanding current pot odds and effective odds and things..

If you want to say you should wait to raise your aces, that's well worth talking about, but that wasn't your initial argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still maintain that advocating raising with Aces on the basis of getting 7:1 on a 3:1 hand is based on a misunderstand/misuse of the true odds of the game, confusing current pot odds (7:1 on a 3:1) with what the true odds will be later in the round (to difficult to tell when you've got 7 callers on 3rd).

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You mean, someone actually agrees with me? gaaaasp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, that's "The Donator"..

Why aren't we having fun on the 4th???????

I need a beer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, I'm off to the lake front to work on my skin cancer.

Happy 4th everyone.

[Andy B]

In the games that SMZ are talking about, the players tend to be fairly aggressive so that you will have a chance to raise on fourth or fifth and thin the field. In a game with seven limpers, the players are probably going to be a lot less aggressive, so you're probably not going to have the opportunity to raise.

The second reason on p. 32-33 mentions specifically that you have a dead card, which is huge. They mention that you might have less than a one-in-five chance, but more than a one-in-nine chance. Here, we are talking about a situation where you almost certainly have better than a one-in-five chance.

So I would say that the reasons you are pointing to on pp. 32-33 are less applicable in a very loose game than they are in a Vegas mid-limit game.

[ QUOTE ]
These future rounds will alter the 7:1 v 3:1 values, as I have explained in my previous posts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not by nearly enough to make limping on third street the best play.

[ QUOTE ]
You kept justifying the raise with "you're giving up so much if you don't." I'm saying you're only giving up 7 SB, the calls from all the limpers (for some reason, in my head I was using a 1/2 game..probably because 7 callers sound like a 1/2 game). In return for that 7 SB, you're getting the benefits described on 32-33 of 7CSFAP, namely keeping the pot size low to make knocking out people easier in later rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're giving up your share of that $7, which is something like $1.75, a little less than 1 BB. I don't think that keeping the pot small has $1.75 worth of benefit.

[ QUOTE ]
Even then, though, I bet one, if not two, of the junk limpers called because they had an ace in the hole and were looking to pair it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but they could as easily have a couple of face cards or even less. When people are limping in with anything, I don't expend a lot of energy trying to put them on a hand, and I certainly don't draw any conclusions like, "gee, he must have an Ace in the hole." I treat my Aces as live until I have evidence to the contrary.

I'm not inclined to go around deleting posts unless people are vulgar or abusive. I don't really care for your tone, but you haven't done anything in this thread that would make me even consider deleting one of your posts.