Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Limit Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Shorthanded

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-29-2005, 02:50 AM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

[ QUOTE ]
UTG is 20/12/2.8 after 1500 hands.
CO is 26/16/2.1 after 4300 hands.

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) pokerhand.org hand converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">CO 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero folds.

Anyone have a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

If UTG had a pfr of 16, and the three better had a pfr of 12- then i have folded in this situation. Otherwise i think its a playble hand. It will def require some skill postflop though.

Haven't i seen you at 10/20 our house?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-29-2005, 05:19 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

I found the link:

Here

The situation was different (on the flop instead of preflop and pumping instead of calling), but the concept is still the same. The posters in this thread weren't no-name n00bs and there's much validity to the myth you spoke about. Tstone said it best, followed by vkh's 2nd post.

What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive. Implied odds and reverse implied odds, however, are not affected. This concept shows that it's possible to have a miniscule EV edge and, at the same time, also possible that adding money will turn that small edge into a small deficit. I believe this is only the case for (non all-in) situations when there is street by street betting and only affects hands (like AK vs. a PP) that need to improve to win.

EDIT: Stellar, thanks for the above screen name edit. Good looking out. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-29-2005, 11:46 AM
kidcolin kidcolin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boston to Sacramento
Posts: 120
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

[ QUOTE ]
What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still doesn't affect the EV neutrality of the situation, though. If you put in a lot of bets in an EV neutral situation (a TRUE EV neutral situation.. I'm ignoring the effect of representing more strength which may make your opponent make a fold where he should continue), you're not going to make more money in the long run because you've bloated the pot and can afford to chase.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-29-2005, 12:14 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still doesn't affect the EV neutrality of the situation, though. If you put in a lot of bets in an EV neutral situation (a TRUE EV neutral situation.. I'm ignoring the effect of representing more strength which may make your opponent make a fold where he should continue), you're not going to make more money in the long run because you've bloated the pot and can afford to chase.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think my above quote poorly explained what I was trying to say. There are correct folds somewhere in there. If the pot is too big, we can't make those correct folds anymore, but they still exist. So, a certain %age of the "correct" call is -EV because of the excessive action on earlier streets. My statement should have read:

"What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets appear positive when they shouldn't be."

I'm pretty sure we're agreeing.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-29-2005, 12:27 PM
JTMoney42 JTMoney42 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

CAP! (Although I like the argument for call) Then promptly go find a better table..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-29-2005, 03:09 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Results

As everyone knows, I folded like a sissy. Knowing their hands, the fold was good.

UTG capped and also had AKo. CO had 66 (believe it or not).

Flop came Qxx, turn x, river A. UTG won and, assuming I made it to the river, my hand was good for 1/2.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-29-2005, 03:47 PM
kidcolin kidcolin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boston to Sacramento
Posts: 120
Default Re: Results

Further evidence that the PFR stat is somewhat overrated. For one, it doesn't account for 3-betting standards, because some 20 PFR guys will open with KJo and 3-bet anyone with it, some will tighten up considerably. For two, it doesn't mean they only raise top hands.

The fact that CO is 3-betting as low as 66 against an UTG raise makes your fold pretty crappy.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-29-2005, 04:37 PM
StellarWind StellarWind is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 704
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

[ QUOTE ]
What we do in EV neutral situations has a direct bearing on whether or not actions on the later streets are positive.

[/ QUOTE ]
The kurosh example is deceptive because the flop action is *not* EV neutral.

That thread floated all over the place, so let me recap some assumptions:

1. Preflop pot of 3 SB.

2. Hero has a draw with a 1/3 chance of completing by the river.

3. Hero has no fold equity with an unmade hand. He will always have two opponents unless he makes his hand.

4. Hero cannot collect any bets after he completes his draw.

5. Hero will be wringered on the turn and have to pay 4 BB to see the river. I added this assumption to clarify my point.

6. There is no cap on the flop.

Argument:

Each flop bet gives 2-1 odds and has a 1/3 chance of winning, therefore it is EV neutral (zero EV). Except for variance it would appear that it doesn't matter how many bets go in on the flop. The curious thing is that if no money goes in on the flop then Hero will not have pot odds to call the turn (1/5 chance to win), but if many bets go in on the flop the pot will become bloated and calling four bets on the turn becomes correct.

Paradox:

The "neutral EV" flop bets changed the EV mathematics of the whole hand.

Resolution:

Limit hold'em players are so accustomed to never folding flush draws that they accepted the "2-1 bet odds and 1/3 chance to complete draw means neutral EV" spiel without question. But it's wrong and if I redid the example with a big table full of callers and a gutshot people would see it immediately. We all know you can't count on two pulls at a gutshot. The odds on turning the flush draw are only about 4-1 and the 2-1 bets on the flop are clearly negative EV.

Only when the pot becomes sufficiently large that Hero is river committed do the well-known flop 2-1 bet odds come into play.

A similar effect occurs with gutshots. If I drop Ed Miller's famous $1000000 into the pot preflop, then I can start value-betting the flop at roughly 5-1 odds with a nut gutshot because I'm guarenteed to see two cards.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-29-2005, 06:09 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

Stellar,

You deserve to be commended, as you did a phenominal job throughout this whole thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The "neutral EV" flop bets changed the EV mathematics of the whole hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important concept. There is a standard argument that money you put in the pot belongs to the pot and is no longer yours. This argument is usually brought up when evaluating correct "chasing" odds. At the time of the decision (flop, turn, river, etc.) the argument is valid. The money in the pot doesn't belong to you and therefore the pot is already bloated. However, there are certain preventive measures that can be taken at the "time of bloating" which will allow us to make correct folds when we're supposed to (Kurosh's thread illustrated this idea).

In the current hand, I believe capping preflop with AKo will give us correct odds to call on the turn fairly often....and won't allow us the opportunity to make the right fold in that spot, as exemplified in Kurosh's thread. Just calling preflop may or may not do this and for that reason, I believe calling to be a better option than capping.

There's one other thing from Kurosh's thread that can redefine the way we look at decisions. Bloating to give correct odds for a later call is bad when we're currently -EV. As the thread pointed out, there are situations where pumping the pot can hurt us when we're currently "EV neutral". Using that line of logic, there have to be situations where pumping can be a detrement EVEN IF WE'RE SLIGHTLY +EV!! This can happen any time the value we get by pumping is less than the value we lose by not being able to make a correct laydown. It's a VERY interesting concept.

All of this is separate from implied odds or reverse implied odds. Kurosh completely removed those from his example and the paradox still existed. The way we assess EV on any given street has to include the (-EV now, +EV later) possiblity of future calls when we don't currently have the winning poker hand.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-29-2005, 06:45 PM
StellarWind StellarWind is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 704
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

Here is an example that I made up a long time ago in a preflop EV thread.

You are playing heads up hold'em but the deal is rigged. One of you will flop TPTK. The other player will receive a standard gutshot. It is completely random as to who will receive what.

Scenario 1: Both players are perceptive and skillful and will play FTOP-correctly postflop. Whoever gets TPTK will bet and his opponent will compute pot odds and act accordingly. There are no implied odds because no one ever chases a made straight. There are no redraws to full houses.

Analyze the preflop play.

Scenario 2: Exactly like scenario 1 except that Villain has a bit of gamble. He will always peel one card to try and make his straight. Other than this he plays properly.

Analyze the preflop play.

I'll post again later after you've had some time to absorb this. This example has great significance when a good player is considering raising the field for value with some mediocre hand like QJs that has a small PokerStove edge over the marching nitwits. Specifically I am thinking of opponents who only play their cards and don't consider pot size or what hand the PFR is representing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.