Comments please O8b hand

[Steve-o]

Buzz I worked these scenarios out a while back where I had A249 with a suited Ace and the flop was KT3 with 1 of my suit.

my calculations told me I needed 12 small bets (the absolute minimum was 10) in the pot with 3 opponents who will call to make it worthwhile to chase. pretty close to Beavis's hand, EXCEPT I have runner runner flush and a lot more low straight potential should the right turn card fall. actually with the right turn card I could be raising this hand on the turn, something that Beavis's hand would never be able to do, thus increasing my payoff when I make my hand.

this is why I said I want 15 small bets and 3 opponents to chase in Beavis's case.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
No malice intended on my post, Buzz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Domester - Thank you. Nor on mine.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just that it seems to me as if you can always find enough things bad about a hand/flop to fold it unless you have the current nuts with more than one redraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in this thread did I suggest folding?

I did indicate that I thought the pre-flop raise was ill advised. And I did write [ QUOTE ]
”I think you played the rest of the hand fine. (Without the pre-flop raise, I think it's an easy fold to a bet on this flop).”

[/ QUOTE ] But that is advocating a fold on this flop <font color="red">WITHOUT</font> the pre-flop raise. Here there was a pre-flop raise, (whether I like it or not). As a consequence, the implied pot odds are different than they would have without the pre-flop raise.

Where, in any of my posts did I suggest folding without the current nuts with more than one redraw. There might be some circumstance where playing that tightly would be proper play, but I can’t think of one off-hand - and thus I can’t imagine that I ever suggested it - but if I did, I imagine it was specific for the one, possibly unique, situation in the post. (But I have no recollection of that).

Perhaps you've merely exagerated a tad. You can do what you want, of course, but in my own mind it's often a delicate balance between playing or folding. You may not get to what I think is the truth if you stretch what I write. Maybe what I think is the truth doesn't matter to you. (Indeed in the grand scheme of the cosmos, what I think seems insignificant).

And not that it matters how I play, but where did you get the incorrect notion that I fold unless I have the nuts with re-draws?

At any rate, I hope this post sets the record straight for you.

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
your math is a little off, there are 21 ways to make his hand on the river not 24.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve - Thank you for the correction. My error. Here’s the correction:

<font color="red">Putting those together,
9/25*28/16 + 16/25*23/21 = 0.63+0.70 = 1.33 to 1.

If you're going to use a 3 small bet basis, then I think you should make the odds against Hero's making low 1.33 to 1 rather than 3 to 1.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
there is no promise of 3 players paying off the river bet I would be surprised if the river bet wasn't heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t disagree with you. My thinking was maybe Hero expected some loose calls on the river. I know players from whom I’d expect loose calls on the river. I’ve been in games where there might be several opponents who would all make loose calls on the river. But not in the afternoon game at the local casino. I’d take a very expensive bath expecting several loose calls on the river in that game.

[ QUOTE ]
there are too many what ifs in your scenario, it is quite possible that with the low made every one checks to hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I was figuring it.

[ QUOTE ]
also look at what happened on the turn, a 2 came what if it gets raised on the turn? can you fold? it is not a guarantee that this costs you only 3 SB's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. A raise on the turn would be ugly.

[ QUOTE ]
you say that if he is playing in a game where suckers chase the low then he will get paid off. but isn't he a sucker chasing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I think sometimes one should loosen up to be involved with an opponent who is playing poorly. But there’s clearly a paradox involved. You don’t want to loosen up so much that you become the one who is playing poorly.

[ QUOTE ]
and wouldn't that mean he is likely to get quartered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another good question. I thought I had the getting quartered (and sixthed) aspect included in my calculations. But getting quartered or not is very dependent on how your opponents play and is especially hard to know after a flop like this.

I ran some sims on the hand/flop today. As you might expect, how well Hero does just depends on how many opponents chase and pay off on the river.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Buzz]

Steve - My thinking might be too conservative here. I was thinking Hero had no decent shot at high. However, in view of my sims results today (some of which I'll show below), maybe he does.

Giving Seat #10 A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], making the flop
K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], giving players in the other seats random hands, and having them see the showdown, here are the simulation results for number of wins in 10000 runs:
Seat #10 five handed:
• 145 high .... 978 low .... 993 scoop
Seat #10 six handed:
• 130 high .... 996 low .... 701 scoop

Seat #10 doesn't do as well with this hand and flop as the other seats do with random hands and this flop. That's why you need those extra bets in the pot on the first betting round to justify continuing to a bet on the second betting round.

Yeah, I know Hero is starting out ten handed and there was some hand selection that occurred before the flop to cut the field down to five handed for the flop. But I'm thinking it's a crap shoot for high anyway. Well... people are a bit more likely to play hands with kings. But sixes and jacks? They're not as desirable as aces for sure, and I think wheel cards, kings and queens are next favorites after aces. Of course people aren't just plying individual cards, but the various combinations they like are more likely to have aces, and then wheel cards, and then kings and queens .... (and there's some overlapping). At any rate, bottom line, I'm thinking that in terms of high hands, maybe simulating five opponents is close to playing four opponents.

Not much there, big gaps in that reasoning, but against five opponents (six handed sims) seat ten does:
• scoop 38%
• win high 7%
• win low 55%.

The point is, in the five and six player sims, seat ten does more than just win for low.

The obvious problem is it's pretty hard to take any heat after the flop with a pair of jacks (middle pair). Then without a low card on the turn, you're gone in real life although in the sims you're still alive. Finally, unless low is enabled on the river, it's pretty hard to play the hand. But if low does come in, the sims show the hand scooping more often than it would with just with the low straight. My guess is that if low does come in, (1) the hand has to make two pair on the river (which also gives it low, assuming the turn was a four, five, seven, or eight), or (2) the hand makes the six high straight. But between the six high straight and two pair, two pair, at 144/990, is nine times less likely than the straight, at 16/990.

At any rate, it's hard to figure, but I now believe I need to include some scoops in the calculation for implied pot odds. Including just 1/3 scoops (there are actually more, about 3/8, in the simes) would reduce, at least by one and maybe by two, the number of opponents Hero would need chasing.

Hmm. Back to the drawing board on this one.

Buzz

[Steve-o]

yeah I got close to the same results you did, but when i gave 1 player top 2 it squashed that from around 20% scoop to 2%.

[Steve-o]

And actually if you give 1 of the players an A3 you go down to around 20% for a non quartered low, and it's down to 9% for a non quartered low if someone has A2.