Internet Texas Hold'em: Poker Concepts I Discussion (pg 19-50)

[dgoldsmith]

I hope I'm not stepping on uw_madtown's toes (and also hope nothing has happened to him). I decided to post this today to get the discussion topic up as I had some questions on this material.

UW, feel free to edit this afterwards to put whatever starting text you would have posted.

[dgoldsmith]

This sub-topic is for questions about the chapter on probability and odds.

[dgoldsmith]

This sub-topic is for questions about the chapter on bluffing.

[dgoldsmith]

In this example (you have KdQc, the board is JdTc5h2s), it does not list AA as a hand you would lose to if you caught your 2nd K or Q. Is this an oversight or is there some weird explanation for this. If you get a K or Q, you did not make your straight and so I would expect AA to beat me.

[dgoldsmith]

You have Ac9h and the flop is Jd9d4c with several callers. 3 outs for the other Aces but you discount the Ad for the flush threat. You are also supposed to discount for threat of AA (set) or AJ (2 pair).

How much would you end up discouting the 3 outs? 1.5? 1?

[dgoldsmith]

On page 25, the first advanced concept refers to 2-suited flops. In the following explanation, it states that against several callers, drawing to weak hands against a likely flush draw is bad EXCEPT when the pot is "exceptionally" large.

What could be considered an exceptionally large pot?

[BigBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
In this example (you have KdQc, the board is JdTc5h2s), it does not list AA as a hand you would lose to if you caught your 2nd K or Q. Is this an oversight or is there some weird explanation for this. If you get a K or Q, you did not make your straight and so I would expect AA to beat me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I spotted that too. In fact, in the second part of that example, in the list of hands that would beat us if a Queen comes on the river, I believe he left out both A-A and K-K. That's just based on a quick look at the list.

[BigBluffer]

On page 21, Matthew defines counterfeiting different from the way I've always heard it used in poker. To me, counterfeiting has meant that the board cards render one or both of your hole cards useless. For example, if I hold 9-9 and the flop is K-K-J, I have two pair - Kings and nines. If a J comes out on the turn, I still have two pair - Kings and Jacks. My nines have been counterfeited. They have been rendered useless (except as a kicker or unless a 9 comes out on the river giving me a boat - although my boat will probably sink). In my limited poker experience, I've never heard the word counterfeited defined with respect to an opponent's hole cards counterfeiting my hole cards.

I've gone through my other poker books to see how other authors describe counterfeiting. In Winning Low Limit Hold'em, Lee Jones defines it with respect to the board cards rendering your hole cards practically worthless. So does Miller in Small Stakes Hold'em.

[BigBluffer]

When Matthew mentions a three-suited flop on page 25, does he mean a flop like hearts-hearts-hearts, or a flop like hearts-clubs-spades? Based on the context of the term, I think he means the former, but a literal reading would infer the latter. I think what he's calling a three-suited flop is really a one-suited flop, or a three-of-a-suit flop. It took me a while to figure this out. I don't like to get too bogged down on the terminology he uses, but we need a clear understanding of the terminology before we can apply the concepts he's teaching.

On a positive note, I think the hand examples and explanations are awesome. I've had a couple of "wrong" answers, but nothing too significant.

[dgoldsmith]

Yes, he means that a 3-suited flop is 3 cards all of one suit. A 2-suited flop has 2 card of one suit and 1 card of a different suit.

I've seen the term "rainbow" used to describe a flop with 3 different suits.