Why can't I fold...i know exactly what he has...!

[C-Dog]

Why not checkraise the flop instead of the turn. If you get 3bet then you get some more info, and it costs you less. Once you decide to CR the turn, and he 3 bets you, I think you can make the laydown. This may have been a check/calling kind of hand though.

C-Dog

[LoaferGee12]

25/2. Why aren't we folding this preflop?

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
25/2. Why aren't we folding this preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample size.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Once you decide to CR the turn, and he 3 bets you, I think you can make the laydown.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have so many hidden outs it is ridiculous.

[MrWookie47]

50 hands isn't everything, but it's something. PFR% converges fairly quickly. Sure, there is a chance that he's gotten nothing in 50 hands, but it's more probable that he doesn't raise all that much. That 2% statistic is currently our best estimate for his true PFR%, and completely disregarding it is foolish. We don't want to take it as gospel, either, but we can look and see that this guy probably isn't raising all that many hands preflop, and we're up against something good. Granted, there are exceptions. I was up against a guy on UB about a month ago who had a PFR of about 5%, but I was iso-3betting him with KJo, A8o, and stuff because he only raised junky hands. He slowplayed his good stuff. There aren't very many of these guys, though. Barring a real read, we can't assign a significant probability to this guy only raising his junk hands.

Just as we do Bayesian analysis when we consider hand ranges, the same math applies to opponent ranges. There's a probability this guy's true stats are 25/2. He might also be 30/10. Or 10/1. Or 40/20. He might be raising from a subset of the top 10% of hands, the 2nd 10%, or the bottom 10%. However, base on the ranges of players who, after 50 hands, have these stats, it's most probable that this guy has a VPIP of 20-30, a PFR of 1-7, and is raising from a subset of the top 10% of hands. Even if you want to completely disregard stats until you have thousands of hands of data on the guy, you're most correct to look at the average player from your database. This would be something like a VPIP of around 35, PFR around 12, and raises from a subset of the top 20% of hands. I'd strongly consider folding against this guy, too.

If someone is going to convince me that this is indeed a call preflop, especially in a 1/3 blind structure, you're going to have to make a much more convincing case than just saying "sample size too small."

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
50 hands isn't everything, but it's something. PFR% converges fairly quickly. Sure, there is a chance that he's gotten nothing in 50 hands, but it's more probable that he doesn't raise all that much. That 2% statistic is currently our best estimate for his true PFR%, and completely disregarding it is foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. What I mentioned about not creaming over the stats still holds, though. If 3 different players caught me for 50 hand stretches while datamining, one might see me as 23/16, one might get 35/22, and one 15/7.

If I only have 50 hands on a guy I'm going to rely much, much more on how I've percieved his play THIS session. If he's been here for 4 or 5 orbits and hasn't raised yet, then yeah, I'll probably dump AJo PF to his UTG raise. If I get the impression he's raising with more hands than his 2 PFR indicates, then I'm going to tangle with him more freely.

[Koss]

[ QUOTE ]

If I only have 50 hands on a guy I'm going to rely much, much more on how I've percieved his play THIS session. If he's been here for 4 or 5 orbits and hasn't raised yet, then yeah, I'll probably dump AJo PF to his UTG raise. If I get the impression he's raising with more hands than his 2 PFR indicates, then I'm going to tangle with him more freely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you would go about doing this unless you've seen the 1 hand he's raised so far and it was Q8 from UTG. You criticize the small sample size as far as using statistics, but trying to get a read on this guys general style of preflop play and ignoring stats isn't going to be much easier over 50 hands IMO.

[kidcolin]

I think you're missing my point. You get a better feel for and understanding of a guy by observing his actual play than by looking at his stats.

In one sense, you're right. It could be the same thing.. I've sat with him for 4 orbits, he hasn't raised preflop or played many hands, I haven't seen junk at any of his showdowns, so it looks like those 50 hands are along the right lines.

It might be different, though. I've seen some bizarre hands limped in with, a legit raise, an odd A4o raise after two limpers, or T9s from the BB, and now I'm going to go on what I've seen, even if his stats are 25/2. Even if that's not his normal schtick, that's how he's playing right now, and I'm going to make decisions based on that.

I was never trying to argue that folding is incorrect. I'm just trying to challenge the "25/2 over 50 hands, easy fold" arguments. Paying attention and getting actual reads is far more important. It's especially important for players in this forum to understand that. The guys in the MHSH (or whatever it is) already know that.. they wouldn't have gotten past 5/10 if they routinely based the majority of their decisions on stats alone.

[MrWookie47]

I agree that there are reads that could push this to a call (or perhaps a more likely 3bet). All we got were some stats, though, so that's what I use to make my decision. I look at the stats, combine it with my other information (nothing, in this case), and reach a conclusion (easy fold, in this case). Of course, we can both take this opportunity to prod the OP to make and supply better reads [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. Nine orbits should be more than enough time to get something a little more substantial.

[LoaferGee12]

[ QUOTE ]
50 hands isn't everything, but it's something. PFR% converges fairly quickly. Sure, there is a chance that he's gotten nothing in 50 hands, but it's more probable that he doesn't raise all that much. That 2% statistic is currently our best estimate for his true PFR%, and completely disregarding it is foolish. We don't want to take it as gospel, either, but we can look and see that this guy probably isn't raising all that many hands preflop, and we're up against something good. Granted, there are exceptions. I was up against a guy on UB about a month ago who had a PFR of about 5%, but I was iso-3betting him with KJo, A8o, and stuff because he only raised junky hands. He slowplayed his good stuff. There aren't very many of these guys, though. Barring a real read, we can't assign a significant probability to this guy only raising his junk hands.

Just as we do Bayesian analysis when we consider hand ranges, the same math applies to opponent ranges. There's a probability this guy's true stats are 25/2. He might also be 30/10. Or 10/1. Or 40/20. He might be raising from a subset of the top 10% of hands, the 2nd 10%, or the bottom 10%. However, base on the ranges of players who, after 50 hands, have these stats, it's most probable that this guy has a VPIP of 20-30, a PFR of 1-7, and is raising from a subset of the top 10% of hands. Even if you want to completely disregard stats until you have thousands of hands of data on the guy, you're most correct to look at the average player from your database. This would be something like a VPIP of around 35, PFR around 12, and raises from a subset of the top 20% of hands. I'd strongly consider folding against this guy, too.

If someone is going to convince me that this is indeed a call preflop, especially in a 1/3 blind structure, you're going to have to make a much more convincing case than just saying "sample size too small."

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have put it better myself. Nice post.