REVIEW: Ed Miller's new book "Small Stakes Hold'Em" (page 13)

[DonkeyKong]

AA is a bad example because it plays well both heads-up and multiway. Speculative hands need certain conditions to be +EV. It was not a +EV play just because it normally does this.

This entire discussion is dependent on how volatile the table is in terms of multiway vs heads up and raised vs unraised.

If the table is always going multiway, then the play is +EV.

But just because it normally does X, does not make it +EV.

Statistics rely on lots of assumptions (normality, no fat tails etc...) and just looking at an average by itself is useless. Data has to be statistically significant.

It isn't a disaster if you make a play that doesn't play out as you expected but you are fooling yourself if you think it is +EV just because of some hostorical average.

Note that this is entirely due to position. It is clearly +EV if you know how the action is looking and you can make an informed decision.

My only point is that UTG, this play can be +EV or -EV. If you think it is definitely +EV UTG because it normally does X, then we just disagree. I

AA is +EV necessarily because it doesn't matter what happens after you. With speculative hands UTG that are clearly not big +EV contributors, EV is very near zero. Maybe slightly +EV.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Data has to be statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had only observed 1 hand at a table and that hand was an unraised family pot, which is more likely: that the next hand will be played similarly or that it will be capped preflop? I say the first. (If you disagree, try reading this thread.) So should you play A2s in this case? I'd say yes.

I think Microbob is right about the Pokerroom EV stats. These are the average for all players. The average EV of all hands based on these stats is -.03 BB (if I did the math right). The average player is a loser.

For this losing player, A2s utg has an EV -.01 BB, but significant overall +EV of .08 BB at positions not including the blinds. For a player that plays the hand in the right circumstances and plays it well, A2s utg likely has significant +EV.

[Trainwreck]

That is the silliest thing I have ever read here, and that's saying A LOT.

Wondering: ACID or PCP?

>TW<

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
For this losing player, A2s utg has an EV -.01 BB, but significant overall +EV of .08 BB at positions not including the blinds. For a player that plays the hand in the right circumstances and plays it well, A2s utg likely has significant +EV.

[/ QUOTE ] \



And to my mind, almost 0.1BB from ALL of the players (inlucding the losers) hardly qualifies as 'razor-thin' EV.
You are missing EV if you fail to play these on the appropriate tables, plain-and-simple.

And quite a few around here seem to have incredibly exaggerated standards as to what makes a table appropriate for such a play.

On most typical 2/4 and 3/6 tables you should be playing these.

Curious if there are any winning 15/30 players around here who like Axs and low PP UTG. I suspect probably not but I really don't know.

[astroglide]

pocket pairs are way better than Axs early in the 15

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
For this losing player, A2s utg has an EV -.01 BB, but significant overall +EV of .08 BB at positions not including the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

The second of these numbers is wrong. It's only .01 BB outside the blinds, essentially zero. Sorry about that.

I would still say that A2s can have value utg for a good player.

[astroglide]

i don't believe it's possible to break even with A2s utg in aggressive midlimit games

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't believe it's possible to break even with A2s utg in aggressive midlimit games

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept this.

The A2s utg example came from our good friend edrugtrader's "review" of SSH, where he disagreed with some of Ed's "loose games" (avg. 6-8 players to the flop) recommendations:

[ QUOTE ]
page 82: 6 players seeing the flop on average, and you want me to call with A2s under the gun?!

[/ QUOTE ]

[astroglide]

with 6-8 players seeing a flop i would like it