|
|
#31
12-15-2005, 09:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
i could be wrong, but i think my post corrects the math errors.
|
|
#32
12-15-2005, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
...my hand can't look like anything other than AA or KK to this guy.... [/ QUOTE ] I think this is completely and totally wrong. Your hand just looks like something willing to play for $130 all-in preflop. If you need AA or KK to do this legitimately, I think you're missing a lot of good opportunities.
|
|
#33
12-15-2005, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
MrFeelNothin
[ QUOTE ] If you fold you lose $0. [/ QUOTE ] Not true....you've already got $12 dollars in the pot for a net loss on the hand of $12. You seem to think that you can't lose money that you've already put in the pot. Not true. When you look at the hand history you will see that you've logged a loss of $12. At the same time when you win a hand and consider you're net win, you don't consider the money that you put in the pot. [ QUOTE ] If you push: 50% of the time you win $67 14.3% of the time you win $197 35.7% of the time you lose $185 (i don't know how i came up with $142) ------------------------------------- average loss of $4.37 [/ QUOTE ] fixed you're post and mine [ QUOTE ] again, the numbers are nowhere near this good for you but i think the play is horrible. [/ QUOTE ] My estimate still seems fairly reasonable to me given the OP. If OP made a mistake on this hand, i don't think it was a big one. How often do you think OP's allin gets called?
|
|
#34
12-15-2005, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
except........at the point in time at which we are making our decision the $12 is no longer ours. it is the property of the pot. we can't decide, oops raising was a bad idea lets take it back. its irrelevant where it came from, its in the pot.
|
|
#35
12-15-2005, 09:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
i could be wrong, but i think my post corrects the math errors. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're wrong (although my original math was wrong also....See my post with the corrected math.) where we're in conflict is how we're handling the $12 OP already has in the pot. I wouldn't be shocked if i'm wrong but don't think that i am.
|
|
#36
12-15-2005, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ...my hand can't look like anything other than AA or KK to this guy.... [/ QUOTE ] I think this is completely and totally wrong. Your hand just looks like something willing to play for $130 all-in preflop. If you need AA or KK to do this legitimately, I think you're missing a lot of good opportunities. [/ QUOTE ] I think the only thing that qualifies as a "legitmate" hand is the one that wins in the very specific context of that moment in the game. I'm not going to consult my starting hand chart every time I think it's right to put my chips in the middle. It sounds like you are saying that this move is only good if I have "X" hand or better. I think that in the abstract, most people would agree that this play sequence is correct given the right situation with a hand as weak as 72o. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here...? And I think that many players do strongly suspect AA or KK. Maybe you are not one of these players. But it is my experience however, that the third raise gets A LOT of respect in online games. I'm not disagreeing that it was probably a -EV play. But I'm saying that elements of the play have merit to it and might be employed in other situations. I specifically posted this one because it doesn't seem black and white. And because I knew it would be controversial and (hopefully) interesting.
|
|
#37
12-15-2005, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
I'm just saying that the third raise IN THIS CONTEXT is not strongly indicative of AA/KK. The short stacks reraise pot commits him so, if you're playing, its all going in anyway. Calling that raise and folding to his (expected) flop push is not a good line with any holding (in my opinion). If anything, your reraise looks even weaker (than a call would) as it looks like you are trying to push the third guy out and go headsup with the short stack.
|
|
#38
12-15-2005, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
My estimate still seems fairly reasonable to me given the OP. If OP made a mistake on this hand, i don't think it was a big one. How often do you think OP's allin gets called? [/ QUOTE ] I think that this is the crux of the debate here. It's all about our Fold Equity. What do all y'all think our FE is here? Given the number you post, when is our minimum holding in order to make the play profitable?
|
|
#39
12-15-2005, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
except........at the point in time at which we are making our decision the $12 is no longer ours. it is the property of the pot. we can't decide, oops raising was a bad idea lets take it back. its irrelevant where it came from, its in the pot. [/ QUOTE ] Yea...we're looking at this differently. You're doing a pure EV calculation. I'm comparing resluts from folding with results from pushing (from which you can determine the same thing). Anyway, you're way is better [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#40
12-15-2005, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
I think that this is the crux of the debate here. It's all about our Fold Equity. What do all y'all think our FE is here? Given the number you post, when is our minimum holding in order to make the play profitable? [/ QUOTE ] I used you're stellar reads to come up with FE of 50%. Nobody seems to agree with me though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
