$15/$30 Party. CR flop - good move? - Page 5

bobbyi · #41 02-18-2005, 04:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your 6% is totally meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the 6% is a critical part of the analyis. Jeff's argument is "Q9s is a call in the BB here because it is profitable for its flush value alone". I don't see anything wrong with calling Q9s here, but I don't agree with Jeff's analysis and I agree with amulet that this is not profitable based solely on flush value. If it were, any two suited would be profitable here, which I don't believe to be the case. To determine if it is profitable purely for flush value, the likelihood of making a flush is a critical consideration. You are right that we don't always see the river, but that doesn't mean that the 6% figure is useless. It means that the 6% is an upper bound on how often we will make our flush in practice. amulet is being generous here by pretending that we will always be around to catch our flush, and the figure he cites is meaningful and pertinent to the discussion.

In general, any analysis based on drawing to a draw (what our odds of flopping a flush draw?) is suspect in my mind. Suppose that six people see the flop for one bet. On the flop, there is a bet and four calls to you. You have nothing but a backdoor flush draw. Would you call getting 10-1 for just a backdoor flush? I would not. But I could make the hand-waving analysis that "you will turn a flush draw a fifth of the time. If you do, you'll make money on every bet going into the pot with five opponents, so it's a profitable situation. So, getting 10-1 on a 4-1 shot of ending up in a profitable situation, you have an easy call on the flop." But is that analysis correct? Certainly not.

TimTimSalabim · #42 02-18-2005, 04:56 PM

No hand has *only* flush value. Even 72s has some value if a 7 flops and you're an expert player and have a good read on your opponents. For most of us, it certainly wouldn't be losing much to fold the 72s. It's marginal. But the Q9s, with its added straight and high-card value, is easily +EV in this spot for virtually everyone.

bobbyi · #43 02-18-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No hand has *only* flush value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously. But the claim was that Q9s is playable for its flush value alone. I'm claiming that that analysis is correct. The fact that it is playable is clear to most of us. But I don't agree that a good justificiation of the profitability is that its flush value alone is enough to make it profitable, which was Jeff's claim.

[ QUOTE ]
But the Q9s, with its added straight and high-card value, is easily +EV in this spot for virtually everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to suspect that you've completely missed the point here. None of this has anything to do with what I was claiming.

TimTimSalabim · #44 02-18-2005, 06:09 PM

My reply was not specifically aimed at you, but rather to the whole preflop discussion. Sorry for the confusion.

TimTimSalabim · #45 02-18-2005, 06:27 PM

Post-flop thoughts: Since the preflop aggressor is immediately to your left, why not bet out? Then hopefully he will raise and knock out the field for you. Even if he has a big pocket pair, you've still got outs.

MaxPower · #46 02-18-2005, 06:36 PM

I never made the claim that you should play this hand solely for its flush draw value. It has some other ways to win even if they are not that great.

My problem with the 6% number is that amulet seems to be implying that you would need to be getting 16:1 on your preflop call in order to play any 2 suited cards that only have flush draw value. I don't think that is the case. Whenever you play a speculative hand in holdem you are always counting on implied odds.

bobbyi · #47 02-18-2005, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I never made the claim that you should play this hand solely for its flush draw value.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you didn't. But amulet's 6% statistic was not in response to you. To recap: Jeff said "it's obviously correct to call based solely on the odds of flopping a flush draw" (emphasis added). amulet responded, very reasonably, by pointing out that we are only going to make a flush 6% of the time, so playing purely for the flush may not be enough to make this profitable. You responded by saying that his 6% statistic was completely irrelevent and I responded by pointing out that it was indeed relevant to the claim from Jeff that he was disputing. Clear now? I understand that you weren't the one who made the original claim about flush value.

hogger · #48 02-18-2005, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol, not like you think. however, i have a lot more experience then most. plus i believe that a player could play like a rock on the internet, and the opponents are so bad that he would still get his hands paid off. also be aware that i usually play at higher limits, where you have to be more aggressive.
VPI 15.56
PFR 9.28
WTSD 30.48

do the numbers surprise you? what are your #'s?

[/ QUOTE ]

These numbers are not too far off from mine. From this and other posts I've read, I am shocked by the 15% preflop.

hogger · #49 02-18-2005, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this is exactly the type of response that is worthless and only an ass makes. the other responses that say i am incorrect are productive. not only are you an ass, but you are incorrect. jeff what % of the time do you make your flush by the river? hint: less then 6%. therefore, if you are only going on making the flush it is a clear fold, the odds are clearly incorrect. the case that those who understand the game better then you do are making is that the combined chances of winning in addition to the flush makes it a call for one bet out of position. again, calling for your flush chances is 100% wrong. hint; next time you act like an ass, have the correct probabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]
He wouldn't be playing for a flush here after the flop unless he indeed flops a flush draw which he is getting enough odds to do. Your 6% analaysis is terribly wrong!
mike

amulet · #50 02-18-2005, 07:41 PM

maybe it is about the specific hands that have been brought up here, they are a small sample. they are hands are perplexed someone to have been posted, and not random hands. maybe i don't call raises as easily as you do and many of these involve calling raises, but in other cases maybe i am looser then you are. i also tend to have extensive notes on my opponents, so i often play hands i tell people not to play in posts, based on my notes (not only on pt). maybe it is game selection - i think that actually has a lot to do with it. plus i have a small amt of NL cash games because i am teaching a relative, and i play more hands at nl, and i did not take those out before i answered you.