Pure Theory Question

[Nicmavsfan28]

With David its always the math that matters, he told you the relevant factors to the equation. Pretend you are in high school and you are reading a word problem, he even gave you the equation on an earlier post. Now go forth and multiply! [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Nicmavsfan28]

It seems to me that the worse your hand is the more you can make from information in this situation. If you have K2 then paying money would be information on the kicker, correct? Therefore value varies indirectly with the value of the stronger of your two cards. Is this not correct? [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[WriterBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Without much thought I'm thinking 98, 87 or 97. The central location makes it so there are a lot of hands that you dominate and that dominate you. Hence the information is quite valuable. It shouldn't be something like AK or 34 because the chance of the information being useful (ie you actually make a different decision based on the information than you would have in the dark) is going to be less with those hands. With these middle of the deck hands it should be higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was thinking along similar lines, but i would say JTo.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read any of the other responses but it seems obvious to me that the information would be most valuable if I had a mid pocket pair (77-99). I might be a 4 to 1 favorite against a lower pair, a big favorite against random undercards, a 4 to 1 dog to an overpair, a coin flip against two overcards, or a modest favorite against something like A5.

That's a big range.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, the information is of little value when you have a mid pocket pair. Learning your opponent's hole cards won't change your play unless the opponent shows you a bigger pocket pair, which will only happen about 3% of the time. Your only decision is whether to call all-in getting 1:1 pot odds, so you really don't care whether you are a big favourite, a modest favourite, or a slight favourite. All you care about is whether you are a favourite or not.

[Rococo]

I disagree. The question was what two cards in your hand would justify paying the most money to know your opponents' hole cards. A hand like 22 is rarely far ahead or far behind. In other words, if I routinely paid $200 to know my opponents hole cards when I had 22, I would lose money in the long run. Consequently, I wouldn't pay much for the information.

[trojanrabbit]

Now a question from the other side. Suppose you are the guy that went all-in in the dark. You can name the price that your opponent has to pay for you to flip your cards over. How much do you ask for?

[johnc]

From the previous threads, the concensus most definately lies with you paying $x for at look at your opponent's hole cards when your hand will be better than or slightly better than 50%. I aware of that line of thought and fully agree that this is a +EV "in the long run". However, when I take into consideration that fact that this is the one and only hand AND treating this as a go broke, go home situation the 50%+ figure seems far too low.

Sklansky, in his Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, brings this very point up when facing marginal situations and basically concludes that this percentage must be higher, along the lines of 75%. Is this far too high or unrealistic?

[spoohunter]

Q7.

[gumpzilla]

This isn't a tournament situation; provided we ignore the fact that the marginal utility of money is going to be a nonlinear curve (you care more about $1000 if that's all you have vs. if you have $1000000), you can just take a +$EV bet. In tournaments, the issue is that situations that appear chip EV might not actually be +$EV.

[johnc]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a tournament situation; provided we ignore the fact that the marginal utility of money is going to be a nonlinear curve (you care more about $1000 if that's all you have vs. if you have $1000000), you can just take a +$EV bet. In tournaments, the issue is that situations that appear chip EV might not actually be +$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't disagree more. This situation absolutely duplicates that which is faced in tournaments. Labeling aside, this is the one and only hand you'll see - that's huge! My point is not to argue EV over the long run as it applies in usual circumstances. The scenerio of this ONE AND ONLY hand dictates we re-evaluate our level of +EV in the percentage of hands we choose to use as our benchmark for paying to see hole cards. I'm sure some sliding scale based upon these predetermined percentages (this is where my question lies) would be most appropriate.