Theory of Poker: Chapters 1-4 Discussion

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have both made a mistake. If you could see his cards you obviously wouldn't bet. Hence you lost 1 bb by making that move. Your opponent in a rakeless game gained that 1 bb. You benefitted because he should have raised. I don't really buy this because if you could see his cards you wouldn't call his raise so it's a moot point anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound mean, but this is entirely incorrect. If you could see that your opponent has a flush draw and don't bet into him you are making a very large mistake. Your opponent has 9 outs for a win out of 44 unseen cards. Therefore if you know what his cards are you will win every time he doesnt hit his flush and fold on the river everytime he makes his flush. What this means is you will gain $10 35 times and lose $10 9 times for a total gain of $260 over the option of not betting. This is a difference of $5.91/hand. This proves that betting is the correct play for you. Your opponent by calling will lose $10 35 times but gain $55 9 times. This means he makes $145 total or $3.30/hand by calling. Lets contrast that with raising. In this case he would lose $20 35 times and gain $65 9 times assuming you call and dont reraise. This results in a total of him losing $115 or -$2.61/hand. Even if you would call a bet on the river every time he hits his flush he still would end up losing $25 on this play or -$0.57/hand. It is clear that the best option here is for you to bet and for him to call.

The fact that you would fold top two pair to a flush draw who raises you and that you don't believe it is correct to bet into him either if you could see his cards are both very incorrect plays and the fact that you feel these are the correct plays suggest you have a lot of studying of the game to do. This again isn't said to be mean but to show you how much in error this thinking is.

Still waiting for the person who's gonna figure out how they are both gaining on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're both getting an overlay from the money already in the pot.

It would be like if Person X walked by, tossed $50 on the table, and Person Y and Person Z got to play heads-up for it. Even if Y is a slight favorite over Z, given their cards, Z might still be correct to call Y's bet because of the money already in the pot.

Note that it doesn't really matter where the money in the pot came from (previous bets by these two players, bets by players that have since folded, antes, etc). The fact that there's already money in the pot provides an overlay.

If there were no money in the pot, the player on the flush draw would be making an error in calling the two-pair bet.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
You're both getting an overlay from the money already in the pot.

It would be like if Person X walked by, tossed $50 on the table, and Person Y and Person Z got to play heads-up for it. Even if Y is a slight favorite over Z, given their cards, Z might still be correct to call Y's bet because of the money already in the pot.

Note that it doesn't really matter where the money in the pot came from (previous bets by these two players, bets by players that have since folded, antes, etc). The fact that there's already money in the pot provides an overlay.

If there were no money in the pot, the player on the flush draw would be making an error in calling the two-pair bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beat me to it. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

That's the answer though -- both gain from their play due to the money already in the pot. If you're a favorite, to do anything other than bet would be incorrect. If you're getting odds to chase, to do anything other than call heads-up would be incorrect. However, for such a draw to get such odds, there obviously must be money already in the pot, likely from other players that are no longer involved.

Both players gain by their play -- for AK, based on being a favorite, for the draw, based on getting odds due to pot size.

- UW

[Boylermaker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the mathematical expectation of a given hand/situation is what determines what a players correct move is. If it's negative he shouldn't continue to play. If it's positive he should. A player only wants to commit money when he has the best of it, meaning his expectation is positive.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there may be situations where a player should continue to play even when he surmises that in terms of his mathematical expectation, he might have the worst of it. I would think this would apply mainly in tournament situations where either your opponents are superior players to you, or table stack-sizes might dictate that you make a play that is less than optimal.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think this would apply mainly in tournament situations where either your opponents are superior players to you, or table stack-sizes might dictate that you make a play that is less than optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO you're sort of correct and sort of not.

Such a play would be suboptimal in expectation of chips, but would be +ve EV in terms of money. Since you don't play tournaments to maximize your number of chips you leave the table with, it's still a positive expectation in $$$.

[Boylermaker]

1. I would rather play in a small ante game, because I would assume that most players who err tend to err of the side of 'too loose' in terms of starting requirements. The unsophistcated player might then not adequately adjust his starting requirements relative to the ante size. Assuming that he has the same starting requirements regardless of the ante size, then he will be making a mistake more often in a small ante game.

2. I would rather play this hand in a large ante game - need enough money in the pot to make this drawing hand profitable.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have both made a mistake. If you could see his cards you obviously wouldn't bet. Hence you lost 1 bb by making that move. Your opponent in a rakeless game gained that 1 bb. You benefitted because he should have raised. I don't really buy this because if you could see his cards you wouldn't call his raise so it's a moot point anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound mean, but this is entirely incorrect. If you could see that your opponent has a flush draw and don't bet into him you are making a very large mistake. Your opponent has 9 outs for a win out of 44 unseen cards. Therefore if you know what his cards are you will win every time he doesnt hit his flush and fold on the river everytime he makes his flush. What this means is you will gain $10 35 times and lose $10 9 times for a total gain of $260 over the option of not betting. This is a difference of $5.91/hand. This proves that betting is the correct play for you. Your opponent by calling will lose $10 35 times but gain $55 9 times. This means he makes $145 total or $3.30/hand by calling. Lets contrast that with raising. In this case he would lose $20 35 times and gain $65 9 times assuming you call and dont reraise. This results in a total of him losing $115 or -$2.61/hand. Even if you would call a bet on the river every time he hits his flush he still would end up losing $25 on this play or -$0.57/hand. It is clear that the best option here is for you to bet and for him to call.

The fact that you would fold top two pair to a flush draw who raises you and that you don't believe it is correct to bet into him either if you could see his cards are both very incorrect plays and the fact that you feel these are the correct plays suggest you have a lot of studying of the game to do. This again isn't said to be mean but to show you how much in error this thinking is.

Still waiting for the person who's gonna figure out how they are both gaining on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're both getting an overlay from the money already in the pot.

It would be like if Person X walked by, tossed $50 on the table, and Person Y and Person Z got to play heads-up for it. Even if Y is a slight favorite over Z, given their cards, Z might still be correct to call Y's bet because of the money already in the pot.

Note that it doesn't really matter where the money in the pot came from (previous bets by these two players, bets by players that have since folded, antes, etc). The fact that there's already money in the pot provides an overlay.

If there were no money in the pot, the player on the flush draw would be making an error in calling the two-pair bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a winner. You are both gaining from the money in the pot. The loss comes from other players in the hand who played incorrectly had they seen your hand or from your own incorrect plays on previous rounds. So it is possible that your gain is from previous losses you made. This hand example is perfect for showing this. If the player holding AK raised preflop, the player holding AT went against the fundamental theorem of poker by calling and thus lost money on this play, which he can actually gain back on future rounds by making correct plays. Also other players will have made incorrect plays on earlier rounds resulting in more losses. So when you gain by your correct play, part of it is coming from these losses made by incorrect plays.

[Boylermaker]

Yes, that's sort of where I was going with that. Thanks for clarifying.

I would also surmise that there would be situations where all of your preflop options in a hand offer -ive expectation, both in terms of chips and money.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
At some online sites they have some games with "mini" half size blinds in their hold'em games (e.g. $1 and $2 for a 4/8 game). So you should play tighter because of the smaller "ante." I think most people are playing looser because it costs them less to enter a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh but you should play looser in this game. Sklansky even explains this in Chapter 4 with an example of a 7 card stud game. Because it costs you so little to call pre flop compared to the size of bets on future betting rounds, your implied odds are through the roof. Because of this you can play a lot more hands pre flop as long as you have the discipline to throw them away when the flop doesnt hit you.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
This chapter may not be the most important chapter to many of you who only play Hold Em and don’t ever encounter antes, but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky clearly states that "antes" for purposes of this chapter include blinds, so I don't see why this chapter wouldn't be relevant to Hold 'Em.



[ QUOTE ]
In 7 card stud you are dealt (8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]) 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Would you rather play this hand in a small ante or large ante game and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm rather new to stud, but i'll try to proffer a guess. This is a decent but not great hand, right? In a small ante game I would fold it and in a large-ante game I would probably raise to steal the antes, but that wasn't the question. To answer the question i'd need to know which move carried a higher (i.e., smaller negative) expectation. That requires some details that aren't stated in the problem, such as the relative size of the antes in the two games, the opponents' upcards, etc.

So my answer is "Not Enough Information".

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This chapter may not be the most important chapter to many of you who only play Hold Em and don’t ever encounter antes, but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky clearly states that "antes" for purposes of this chapter include blinds, so I don't see why this chapter wouldn't be relevant to Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh you're right I was thinking the same as you, but didn't word it right. Thats what I meant when I said, "but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em."