Daily Hand Post: "Amazingly Standard" AQ? - Page 6

jjacky · #51 06-26-2005, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is standard for me also

[/ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

[/ QUOTE ]

About as funny as the ever so used and abused "can you see why" quote. While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that the man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" post is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think this is so easy that you don't even have to think about it, why do you bother reading it? you should better go to the table and make 200+ $ / hour.

jason_t · #52 06-26-2005, 07:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ok, everybody writes this is standard. i will try to argue against it.

flop: the flop is low, but: its suited and you are up against 3 opponents. the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50% and about the same for someone having a pair. even if the flop missed everybody you will get at least one caller anyway pretty often. and a player as passive (pre flop) as villain might have AK or a pocket pair, which he wont fold probably.

turn: after calling the flop, villain probably has a diamond draw, a pair, AK or or a pocket pair. he wont fold any of these hands.

river: after calling cold preflop and calling flop and turn, he is very likely to have something. if he has 2 broadway cards he has you beat (unless he has exactly KQ). if he has a connector he has you beat as well. if he has a pocket pair he has you beat. the only possibility that he has a weaker hand is KQ or Ax of diamonds with an x that doesn't match the board. sounds like a fold, doesn't it?

discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I think this hand is a lot closer and a lot less standard than people are making it appear. It may be standard for people to play the hand the way I played it; that doesn't it means it's correct nor not complex. As Mason alluded to in one of his essays, a lot of players are capable of making the correct decisions in Hold'em, but not realizing why they are correct and not realizing the subtelty involved in their decisions.

jason_t · #53 06-26-2005, 07:45 AM

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

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

[/ QUOTE ]

About as funny as the ever so used and abused "can you see why" quote. While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that the man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" post is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking someone to explain their statement is completely different than saying something mysterious and asking the other person if they got it.

As for the hand, I honestly believe the river is closer than people are making it appear. See my previous comments.

jjacky · #54 06-26-2005, 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, everybody writes this is standard. i will try to argue against it.

flop: the flop is low, but: its suited and you are up against 3 opponents. the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50% and about the same for someone having a pair. even if the flop missed everybody you will get at least one caller anyway pretty often. and a player as passive (pre flop) as villain might have AK or a pocket pair, which he wont fold probably.

turn: after calling the flop, villain probably has a diamond draw, a pair, AK or or a pocket pair. he wont fold any of these hands.

river: after calling cold preflop and calling flop and turn, he is very likely to have something. if he has 2 broadway cards he has you beat (unless he has exactly KQ). if he has a connector he has you beat as well. if he has a pocket pair he has you beat. the only possibility that he has a weaker hand is KQ or Ax of diamonds with an x that doesn't match the board. sounds like a fold, doesn't it?

discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I think this hand is a lot closer and a lot less standard than people are making it appear. It may be standard for people to play the hand the way I played it; that doesn't it means it's correct nor not complex. As Mason alluded to in one of his essays, a lot of players are capable of making the correct decisions in Hold'em, but not realizing why they are correct and not realizing the subtelty involved in their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

i go one step further: As john feeney alluded to in one of his essays, a lot of players are capable of making the wrong decisions in Hold'em, but not realizing why they are wrong and not realizing the subtelty involved in their decisions.
i don't want to state that you played the hand wrong (i think you did, but i am not sure). i just want to say that i am sure there are many standard plays that are incorrect.

jjacky · #55 06-26-2005, 09:45 AM

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

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

[/ QUOTE ]

About as funny as the ever so used and abused "can you see why" quote. While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that the man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" post is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking someone to explain their statement is completely different than saying something mysterious and asking the other person if they got it.

As for the hand, I honestly believe the river is closer than people are making it appear. See my previous comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, and it is very important to ask people "why?" if they don't explain it themselves. the discussion is completely worthless if nobody bothers to give reasons for his opinions.

LinusKS · #56 06-26-2005, 01:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ok, everybody writes this is standard. i will try to argue against it.

flop: the flop is low, but: its suited and you are up against 3 opponents. the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50% and about the same for someone having a pair. even if the flop missed everybody you will get at least one caller anyway pretty often. and a player as passive (pre flop) as villain might have AK or a pocket pair, which he wont fold probably.

turn: after calling the flop, villain probably has a diamond draw, a pair, AK or or a pocket pair. he wont fold any of these hands.

river: after calling cold preflop and calling flop and turn, he is very likely to have something. if he has 2 broadway cards he has you beat (unless he has exactly KQ). if he has a connector he has you beat as well. if he has a pocket pair he has you beat. the only possibility that he has a weaker hand is KQ or Ax of diamonds with an x that doesn't match the board. sounds like a fold, doesn't it?

discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis.

I was prepared to give the zzzzz'ers the benefit of the doubt, because I don't have much experience with 2/4, but it seems like you have to have very little respect for the Villain here to make this +EV.

I'm not sure this should be standard, unless you're convinced your opponents are brain-dead.

ihardlyknowher · #57 06-26-2005, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50%

[/ QUOTE ]

This cannot be right.

Probability of a random hand being suited is 23.53%.

Even if we assume suited hands are twice as likely to be played as a non-suited hand, the probability of a "playable" hand being suited is 36.36%.

Thus, the probability that a "playable" hand is not suited is 1-0.3636 = 63.64%.

Thus, the probability that all 3 opponents do not have suited hands is (0.6364)^4 = 16.40%.

Thus, the probability that at least one opponent has a suited hand is 1-0.164 = 83.6%.

And the probability that the suit of the suited hand is [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]s is 0.836*0.25 = 20.9%.

Note that this ignores the fact that you may be up against 2 or more suited hands, but that is very unlikely and compensated for by the fact that I used 0.25 as the discount factor in the last equation. Since we know there are 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]s on the board, it should be less.

SmileyEH · #58 06-26-2005, 02:25 PM

The postflop action skews the probability - simplistic analysis like this is impossible.

-SmileyEH

ihardlyknowher · #59 06-26-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The postflop action skews the probability - simplistic analysis like this is impossible.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

His statement was a basis for making a decision as to how to play on the flop.

You think the fact that he bet the flop and got only one caller significantly increases the chances he his up against a flush draw here? I am pretty sure if you construct a reasonable range of hands for villain here it will be a flush draw <50% of the time.

In any event, I do think it will be enough times to justify the check/call on the river.

SmileyEH · #60 06-26-2005, 02:38 PM

Agreed - I don't know where the >50% chance comes from. In any event you need to bet the turn because if you check it will usually get bet by a pair anyway, so you might as well protect your hand. I still don't see why this hand has generated so much discussion - I probably play a hand almost exactly the same 10 times a day.

-SmileyEH