|
|
|
|
#1
12-15-2005, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
Let's say you get called 50% of the time and you're a 2.5-1 dog on average (when you get called). I think this is very generous. I don't think the numbers are that good for you but let's go with them!
If you fold you lose $12. If you push: 50% of the time you win $67 14.3% of the time you win $197 35.7% of the time you lose $142 ------------------------------------- average win of $11 again, the numbers probably are not this good for you but i think the play is fine as long as you don't do it very often. 
|
|
#5
12-15-2005, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i think you get called way more than 50% of the time... [/ QUOTE ] If that's the only thing you see wrong with this post, you're not looking hard enough. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean info is missing or my play is awful? Or both? Probably both. I can live with that. If I thought the play was perfect, I never would have posted it...
|
|
#6
12-15-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
Big_Jim is referring to Aggie's post not yours.
|
|
#7
12-15-2005, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i think you get called way more than 50% of the time... [/ QUOTE ] If that's the only thing you see wrong with this post, you're not looking hard enough. [/ QUOTE ] Big jim, can you please elaborate and tell me what was wrong with my math or my logic?
|
|
#8
12-15-2005, 09:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
i could be wrong, but i think my post corrects the math errors.
|
|
#9
12-16-2005, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
Sorry, for being a jackass about my earlier response, but I didn't feel like going over it, because I felt that the errors in your logic were obvious, and that you would see them when you looked at it again.
[ QUOTE ] Let's say you get called 50% of the time and you're a 2.5-1 dog on average (when you get called). [/ QUOTE ] I think that these assumptions are pretty bad. You admit to them being generous, but nonetheless.... a) When he's NOT putting a squeeze on us (which most players are not), he often has a big pair, in which case, we are about a 4:1 dog. b) Even when he IS putting a squeeze on us, we are often behind (maybe dominated), and it will be difficult for him to fold getting fantastic odds. c) You are ignoring SB (although, i do feel that he's usually not a factor) [ QUOTE ] If you fold you lose $12. If you push: 50% of the time you win $67 14.3% of the time you win $197 35.7% of the time you lose $142 ------------------------------------- average win of $11 [/ QUOTE ] Don't include your prior action when doing an EV calc. My off the cuff response was based on a traditional EV calc, not your wacky "results from folding vs. results from pushing" calc. I did an EV calc, but came up with exactly the same thing MrFeelNothin did. So, GIVEN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, a push is marginally correct. However, I feel your assumptions are bogus. My assumptions would be that we get called more often (say 75-80%), and that we have worse equity on average. (Say 3:1)
|
|
#10
12-15-2005, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you get called 50% of the time and you're a 2.5-1 dog on average (when you get called). I think this is very generous. I don't think the numbers are that good for you but let's go with them! If you fold you lose $0. If you push: 50% of the time you win $79 14.3% of the time you win $209 35.7% of the time you lose $173 ------------------------------------- average win of $7.63 again, the numbers are nowhere near this good for you but i think the play is horrible. [/ QUOTE ] Hate to do it but...FYP
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
