Two Plus Two Older Archives  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 12-29-2005, 07:42 PM
kurosh kurosh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 341
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

I still don't fully understand the concepts in my old thread. There is a lot more to it than what is there. It has a lot of implications on PF play. I wish Sklansky had touched on this so I wouldn't have to figure it out piece by piece over time.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-29-2005, 07:44 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused. I guess we're assuming that we can't tell anything from the cards we're dealt? What I mean is if we're dealt 32 preflop, we know we're the one who will flop the gutshot because 32 could never be TPTK.

If we're not allowed to see our cards until after the flop, then it doesn't matter because this would be a complete coin toss every time.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the same deal (we can't see the cards preflop):

The idea here is to keep the pot as small as possible at either 0 or 1 bets. In other words, we check or we call. This allows our "gambling" opponent to make the biggest mistake on the flop by peeling when he has the gutter.


EDIT: Hopefully, I understood the question correctly.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-29-2005, 08:12 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 ]
I'm a little confused. I guess we're assuming that we can't tell anything from the cards we're dealt?

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, you cannot predict who will flop TPTK based on your preflop cards. Assume you cannot see your hand preflop.

[ QUOTE ]
If we're not allowed to see our cards until after the flop, then it doesn't matter because this would be a complete coin toss every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. These are straight even bets on a 50-50 chance. They have zero EV. Bet and raise if you enjoy gambling.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea here is to keep the pot as small as possible at either 0 or 1 bets. In other words, we check or we call. This allows our "gambling" opponent to make the biggest mistake on the flop by peeling when he has the gutter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose Villain bets preflop. You can call this bet or you can raise in which case assume Villain will call.

Thus the preflop pot can be 2 SB or 4 SB at your option. The preflop raise carries zero EV.

Now consider the postflop play. A gutshot should be folded on the flop irrespective of whether the pot is 2 SB or 4 SB. Hero will play the hand exactly the same postflop regardless of what he did preflop. For his own reasons Villain will also play the hand exactly the same postflop.

Since the postflop action will be identical in every respect, it follows that the preflop action cannot change the winner of the pot nor the amount of postflop bets won by the winner. We also noted above that the preflop raise has zero EV.

So why do you think it is more profitable not to raise preflop? If the bigger Sklansky mistake means you make more money, then where is the extra money coming from? It's not preflop and it's not postflop either.

There is a way out of this apparent paradox. The Fundamental Theorem is not wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-29-2005, 08:32 PM
Guruman Guruman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

I'll give it a shot. [please check my EV here, as I’m still learning how to do the specific math]

I'm assuming small blind is the button since we're headsup. The odds of hitting a gutshot are 11-1, or 8.5%. We’ll need a pot that 9.75 sb in size to correctly call without implied odds.
---------

Lets say Wolverine holds AKo in the bb, and Magneto holds JQo in the sb, and both play correctly. The flop will come down KT8.

1)Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, Magneto caps with position, Wolverine calls. This makes the pot 8sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is getting 9-1 to call and chase his gutshot to the turn (with an implied turn lead from Wolverine to make it 10-1). He folds needing 11-1.

2)Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, and Magneto just calls. Now the pot is 6sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is now getting just 7-1 with an implied 8-1 on his gutshot. Magneto folds.

3)Magneto raises on a steal and Wolverine just calls for deception. The pot is 4sb on the flop, and Magneto autofolds to Wolverine’s autobet.

4)Magneto calls and Wolverine checks. The pot is 2sb on the flop, and Magneto autofolds to Wolverine’s autobet.

------------
Now let’s have Magneto peel the flop.
-----------
1) Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, Magneto caps with position, Wolverine calls. This makes the pot 8sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is getting 10-1 to call and chase his gutshot to the turn. He has to catch on the turn, since if he misses he'll have to fold to Wolverine's turn bet. EV on this call [10sb * 8.5% = 0.85sb]. This means that Magneto is losing 0.15sb on this call, and will have to make up 0.75 sb to break even.

2) Magneto raises on a steal, Wolverine threebets for value, and Magneto just calls. Now the pot is 6sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is now getting just 8-1 when he calls with the worst of it. [8sb * 8.5% = 0.68 sb] This means that Magneto is losing 0.32 sb with his flop call, and he’ll have to make up 2.75 bets when he connects in order to break even.

3) Magneto raises on a steal and Wolverine just calls for deception. The pot is 4sb on the flop. Wolverine bets, and Magneto is getting 6-1 when he calls. The EV of this call is [6sb * 8.5% = 0.51] meaning that Magneto is losing 049sb when he calls, and he’ll have to make up 4.75 small bets in order to break even!

4) Magneto calls and Wolverine checks. The pot is 2sb on the flop. When Magneto calls, he’ll be getting 4-1 on his call. [4sb * 8.5% = 0.34sb]. This means that Magneto is losing 0.66 of a small bet on this pot, and will have to make up 6.75 small bets before he breaks even.

-------------
Here’s what I get from this:

1)Magneto is never getting correct immediate odds to call on the flop with a four bet cap. Only occasionally does he have correct implied odds.

2)The times that Magneto can call semi profitably on the flop, he has to fold on the turn when he misses. This will occur 91.5% of the time.

3)JQ doesn’t hold up well vs AK.

4)Magneto’s best move is to limp the sb then fold the flop.

5)Magneto’s worst move is limp the sb, then call the flop.

I think my math is close, but I’d appreciate appropriate beratement and correction.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-29-2005, 08:46 PM
waffle waffle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dallas - 2/4 and 3/6
Posts: 117
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

hi stellar,

does it have to do with the idea that all of the PF equity is not realized because the chaser does not get to see all 5 cards?

edit: or is it something to do with not knowing if we'll flop tptk or the gutshot when we raise pf?

or does it have to do with a donation of .5 bb that i make when the gutshot hits post?

this paradox is really confusing me and it disturbs me how uncomfortable i am thinking out this bit of theory. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-29-2005, 09:14 PM
Guruman Guruman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

It looks like I misunderstood your premise a little there Stellar. I'll take another whack.

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose Villain bets preflop. You can call this bet or you can raise in which case assume Villain will call.

Thus the preflop pot can be 2 SB or 4 SB at your option. The preflop raise carries zero EV.

Now consider the postflop play. A gutshot should be folded on the flop irrespective of whether the pot is 2 SB or 4 SB. Hero will play the hand exactly the same postflop regardless of what he did preflop. For his own reasons Villain will also play the hand exactly the same postflop.

Since the postflop action will be identical in every respect, it follows that the preflop action cannot change the winner of the pot nor the amount of postflop bets won by the winner. We also noted above that the preflop raise has zero EV.

So why do you think it is more profitable not to raise preflop? If the bigger Sklansky mistake means you make more money, then where is the extra money coming from? It's not preflop and it's not postflop either.

There is a way out of this apparent paradox. The Fundamental Theorem is not wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there is no edge one way or the other when both players consider the odds. regardless of the size of the pot, the one who flops top kicker will automatically take down the pot uncontested.

With the gambler, the edge has to come from position, but only because this hand will be won on the turn every time.

I think a critical question is, what will top pair do on the turn those times that the gutshot connects?

will he recognize the straight board and opt to check/fold?
will he bet if he is checked to?
will a made gutshot lead every turn?
if a made gutshot checkraises, will the top pair pay him off?

I can’t figure this one without accounting for the turn here.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-29-2005, 09:18 PM
Guruman Guruman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

--also, I made an assumption on the position of the button and the blind structure. Having the BB become the dealer seems like it would be significant.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-29-2005, 11:09 PM
mongoose51 mongoose51 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 26
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

I like calling here. I don't think we have to be up against AA or KK here. I see people with these stats raising utg w/AJ, and co reraising with AQ, AK, TT, 99 etc. Perhaps calling in this situation is an error, but not much of one.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-29-2005, 11:31 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I Know 2+2 Wants To Kill Me For This......

[ QUOTE ]
There is a way out of this apparent paradox. The Fundamental Theorem is not wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see much of a paradox in this example. It's fairly simple:

The only place we make money is from his flop call when he's the one with the gutshot. But, we don't make ALL of his flop call, because sometimes he will complete his gutshot allowing him a discount on his loss. The smaller the pot is at that point, the smaller the discount he gets. When he makes less the times he hits, we make more.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-30-2005, 12:12 AM
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 ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
First let me emphasize that this constructed problem is face-up poker postflop because I specified FTOP (Sklansky) correct postflop play. Whoever is losing will check and whoever is winning will bet.

If both players play correctly postflop then neither can possibly have an advantage in this symmetrical situation. Any extra bets preflop are even money on a 50% chance and thus zero EV.

When playing versus the gambler you have a substantial advantage thanks to his incorrect flop calls.

The first thing to realize is that if you each player made a very large ante the gambler would be playing correctly by drawing to his gutshot and your advantage would completely disappear.

So obviously it is to your advantage to keep the preflop pot small. But how can we reconcile this with the facts that the preflop betting is zero-EV while the postflop betting is unchanged by the preflop action?

The postflop part of the explanation is quite correct. The money lost in the postflop betting is independent of pot size.

However the preflop bets are not zero EV. The preflop odds of winning the pot are not something that comes out of PokerStove. Your chance of winning the pot is based on a combination of cards and players. You will be winning the pot less than 50% of the time because you fold gutshots and he doesn't. You are getting 1-1 odds on your preflop bet but that money will be coming back to you only about 46% of the time.

Your preflop bets and raises are errors that are costing you money. That is why your profit margin is disappearing as the pot size increases. Once the pot gets so large that chasing is correct, your winning chances increase to 50% and any additional raises become zero EV. You've managed to lose your entire edge through incorrect preflop raises.

Now think about all the times you have been preflop with QTs or something versus four calling-stations. You just called the blind (wimp!) and some bright poster points out that you have 21% equity in a 5-way pot and you are a moron for not pushing that equity edge with a PFR [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

The problem is you are a good player and they are calling stations. I'm really happy for you getting to play a pot against these guys. No doubt you will make lots of money postflop. But it doesn't change the fact that you are not going to see that 21% share of the pots because you use your fold button and they don't. So unless some other factor is operating to make you PFR profitable, your 21% is going to shrink to 18% or whatever and your PFR will be a money-losing turkey.

A related concept is position. Undeserved pots flow from the blinds toward the button. Any value raise from the blinds should plan on winning less than a fair share of pots.
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 03:58 AM.


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