Wow was FCP wrong

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that a computer will calculate the cold odds more correctly, but the human player who has suspicion will recognize more often when the lower probability event has actually occurred. Virtually everyone in this forum in the QQ99 example intuitively knew that someone had AQ even though "statistically speaking" it was more unlikely.
So when you resort to range of possible hand analysis and use statistics to determine probabilities, I think you are surrendering one of your most powerful intuitive weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and my intuitive decision was that you had a live hand and the odds to call, either your straight was good or your flush draw. I couldn't see both being dead, not in the games I play anyway, I see people shove a lot less.

[emptyshell]

I'm not sure why a computer would come up with a different conclusion, unless you assigned random hands to players despite a bet, raise, call, re-raise, and cold-call.

[GooperMC]

I guess that I wasn't clear in the OP. It is impossible to know the EV of this hand because it is dependant on the probability that villain holds certain hands. The point of the SS is to plug in the probabilities that YOU think villain holds certain hands and see what the total EV would be based on these probabilities.

For example if you think that the probability that villain holds a set is 50% enter that into cell C24. If you think that 5% chance that villain will fold then enter that into C35. If you think that there is a 3% chance that villain has AA35 with hearts enter that into C2. Fill in all the probabilities (make sure they add up to 100) then look in cell E28 for the total EV.

If you want you can also play with the current pot size and the amount that hero has in his stack.

I’m sorry if this wasn’t (isn’t) clear. I don’t always realize that things that make sense in my head (because I did them) won’t always make sense to others [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[econ_tim]

[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible to know the EV of this hand because it is dependant on the probability that villain holds certain hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible to calculate the EV of this hand, at least from a Bayesian perspective.

We just need our probility weights for the range of hands our opponent could hold here. If we had a very large database of hands against the Villain (millions of hands) then we could see what he has held when done the same thing. If we haven't played the Villain much, then we can still make a rough estimate based on card frequencies and the average opponent. But that is all we can every do for EV since our opponents won't show us their hole cards.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that a computer will calculate the cold odds more correctly, but the human player who has suspicion will recognize more often when the lower probability event has actually occurred. Virtually everyone in this forum in the QQ99 example intuitively knew that someone had AQ even though "statistically speaking" it was more unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually everyone in the in the forum correctly identified that someone had AQ – but most people then incorrectly implied folding was correct based on that. The fact is that my opponents needed to have more than just AQ, and needed to have it a significant percent of the time before folding becomes correct. In the actual hand I had the best equity on the flop for example.

[ QUOTE ]
So when you resort to range of possible hand analysis and use statistics to determine probabilities, I think you are surrendering one of your most powerful intuitive weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Whether you realize it or not, your intuition just helps you more accurately determine the math. For example, one of the keys in the QQ99 hand was that my intuition said that the chances OtherGuy both had me badly beaten AND would flat call instead of jamming was extremely small – and that the % was small enough that I could continue. Intuition and math are additive.

[GooperMC]

[ QUOTE ]

It's possible to calculate the EV of this hand, at least from a Bayesian perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
From a Bayesian perspective is it possible to get close to the true EV but it still impossible to get the true EV. You would need an infinitely large data set to make your hand distribution 100% accurate.

[ QUOTE ]
We just need our probility weights for the range of hands our opponent could hold here.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is exactly what I did. The probilities are supplied by you from the large database of hands that are in your head.

[ QUOTE ]
If we had a very large database of hands against the Villain (millions of hands) then we could see what he has held when done the same thing. If we haven't played the Villain much, then we can still make a rough estimate based on card frequencies and the average opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]
That still wouldn't give us a true EV calculation, that would just be a good guess.

BTW econ_tim it is good to see you over here. I hope that you stick around and maybe we call all learn something.

[Mendacious]

Saying you had the most equity in the hand is a little misleading since BOTH players were ahead of you, only their equity was halved due to the fact that they were sharing the pot. (Although, obviously effectively it increased your pot odds). In my view this was the LESS plausible explanation for the way they played the hand. It was more likely that one held AQ (possibly suited) and one had either trips or the A flush draw, in which case your Pot equity was substantially lessened.

Also, this also illustrates the problem with the "two blocker" line of reasoning.

[econ_tim]

[ QUOTE ]
From a Bayesian perspective is it possible to get close to the true EV but it still impossible to get the true EV. You would need an infinitely large data set to make your hand distribution 100% accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be too picky, but for Bayesian statisticians, there is no "true" underlying distribution, just our conditional expectations. A Bayseian starts with a set of beliefs, or prior probability weights, and then updates those beliefs when they receive new information.

I think poker players have to be Bayesians since there is no known distribution of poker player types.

But this has to do more with philosophy than O8. I think we are both saying the same things using differnt terms.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that I personally have gotten to that point for the low/middle limit games. But to make the leap to being able to thoroughly beat the higher limit games, where presumably many fewer truly bad players exist, this ability may be what proves to separate low/mid-limit "champs" from their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post, this is exactly it.

[ QUOTE ]
Since all the literature from reputed sources like Steve Badger & Ray Zee seems to advocate a more reserved, tight approach to the game, I'm wondering if I have overdone the intentional correction to Mendacious's human over-estimated fear-of-your-opponent-having-you-dominated. That is, maybe I just need to fold more, thereby lessening the amount that I search for every miniscule +EV situation, in exchange for avoiding a few huge -EV situations.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the perfect way to play PLO8 is somewhere between your style and smash's style, the middle ground that is the perfect way to play. However you play short handed so you need to be ultra aggressive in that case, so your style works for that, but still in a full table you have to be somewhat tight, but also steal, that is essentially the goal, I believe I read somewhere the official term for it, but I cant remember it, tight-aggressive isnt quite it, some other term, ill look through my books, ill find the term.

[GooperMC]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to be too picky, but for Bayesian statisticians, there is no "true" underlying distribution, just our conditional expectations. A Bayseian starts with a set of beliefs, or prior probability weights, and then updates those beliefs when they receive new information.


[/ QUOTE ]
That is picky [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. You are correct though.

[ QUOTE ]
But this has to do more with philosophy than O8. I think we are both saying the same things using differnt terms.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ya.