34 off suite or 95 suited - Page 7

DanZ · #61 02-12-2003, 06:59 PM

Are turbo results supposed to resemble real-life play from either good players, or real life play from a typical mix of players playing a variey of stakes?

That's a new one on me.

astroglide · #62 02-12-2003, 07:03 PM

it has a large array of players whose profiles are meticulously designed, all of which would fall under variations of your standard tight/loose+passive/aggressive descriptions. you can customize behavior very specifically (e.g. if it's 3bet to you in the sb and you have exactly 22, reraise 65% of the time but otherwise fold) and save the player off as your own character.

there are a number of default lineups for low limit types, passive types, loose aggressive types, average types, etc which contain a pre-built mix of the above-mentioned players. you can change the lineup as you wish to make your own lineups to match a specific type of game (e.g. 6 loose/passive, 2 maniacs, 1 tight/aggressive, 1 weak/tight).

suffice it to say, it's exceptionally flexible. www.wilsonsoftware.com (and no, i don't work there!)

MichaelD · #63 02-12-2003, 08:25 PM

Dan,

Thanks for your compliment. It is appreciated.

In regards to your observations "how well do you play, how well do they play, and what do they think of you?" To paraphrase Mason's essays - I agree. These factors are all extremely important when trying to determine the specifics of a given situation.

Your observations of comparing opponents as being weak or skilled is an astute one and can absolutely have an impact in the play of hands such as this one.

Your reference about me being able to lay a hand down, and you give the J8 example is a valid one. For whatever it is worth, I am capable of making these laydowns; although whether or not I make the play is dependent on my opponents. Interestingly enough, you also point out, when you do it, it varies greatly depending on the player.

There are a couple of players I play against regularly whom I almost always make the call as long as the pot is of reasonable size, sometimes with second pair. The obvious reasons are they always make a play at the pot no matter what they have and not matter what the size of the pot. Against other players, who have not yet demonstrated an ability to adjust their play, I can easily make the laydown as I know I am beat.

This brings us back to your initial questions I posted at the beginning of my reply. They are so very important if one is going to beat a mid-limit game for any amount over an extended period of time. I will define extended period of time to at least 5000 hours.

I listen to all of the data from the sims, and at one point, I had all of the Sklansky hands memorized by order and also broken down by group. I think these are great as a foundation upon which to buil. But from my experience, there are other variables that far outweigh a percentage of .05% that someone will state is the edge one hand has over another and then brush it off and say "You are Wrong", or "Weak", or "Giving up too Much". While this may be true in an idealistic statistacal only based world, I have found that it is not necessarily true at the poker table.

I could really care less about the minute percentage 95 suited has over 34 off, but the process to determine the different factors involved in the different situations that may present themselves at the table are what interest me.

You brought up some great questions in your post, the ones I re-listed at the top of this post. A few others have mentioned some simulation figures. I find this infomration to be useful and valuable to help all of us improve our play. In fact, allow me to return the compliment and state that in all of your posts, the quesions you ask, and the points you make are all valid and extremely relative to the specific situation you are describing or asking about. While these finer points obviously elude many who read them, they are still KEY if one is to beat the game long term for any amount of money worht mentioning.

What I do not find at all helpful is when someone on this forum says something like "95 suited is the best hand" and gives no reason for their statement. Just because someone writes something with conviction does not make it true. While in fact the statement may be true, the thought process used and the questions asked to arrive at the conclusion stated are jsut as important as the conclusion itself. in fact, over the long term of one's poker career, I would argue that the thought processes used and the questions asked, are more important than any almost any other factors. Obvisouy other facors are important, but I do not feel it necessary to list them as I belive most here are aware of them.

How one arrives at the decisions he makes at the table will determine whether or not he is able to stay in the game without going broke - a feat which VERY FEW players are capable of doing year after year after year. And no, 4-5 years of playing 1000-1500 hours a year is not a long time. From my personal experience, it is the bare minimum amount of time to determine if you are a truly a winning player - one who is capable of managing the swings in both poker and life - that go with this profession - either part time or full time. But that is the subject of another post.

Keep up the good work Dan and thanks for your reply.

Just some thoughts...

Michael D.

MichaelD · #64 02-12-2003, 08:52 PM

Astroglide,

Glad to see a post where you actually share your thoughts with us. When a poster writes what you first did...

"95s it isn't even close, yawn"

It is very difficult for many of us to actually take that person seriously or even want to read anything they write any more. From a statistical point of view, your statemet is obviously correct and does not need to be debated. 95 suited is a better hand. However, fom other points of view, I do feel it is possible to be debated. These perspectives are valid ones and they are applicable at the poker table. While it may be true that even from these perspectives 95 suited is still better, it is not a black and white issue and it can withstand a debate.

By your own admission...

"i do word things too harshly, and i do need to elaborate more where i assume the details are clear (just because they are in my head)."

I, for one, would like to see you elaborate more on your thoughts. Since you obviously take this seriously, perhaps the rest of us could benefit more if we understood what you are thinking and the thought process you are using to get there. I think it would be a major boost to this forum if you would share with us your ideas in a bit more detail.

On a side note, I went back to October of last year and looked at your posts and the one thing I had hoped to find I did not. I was looking for an original post from you in the hopes I may better understand your thinking. It is possible I missed it, but all of your posts had "re" listed at the beginning which, if I am not mistaken, tells me you are responding to someone else. While this is an extremely valuable way to contribute to this forum, I for one would love to see an original post from you and I am confident many others on the forum would as well. There is obviously a level of thought going on in your head that we do not see in your written responses, and it would be good if we had an opportunity to see that.

Thanks for your more detailed explanation in the post I am currently responding to and hopefully we can see more of this in the future.

Just some thoughts...

Michael D.

astroglide · #65 02-12-2003, 11:38 PM

cool

i've been too busy to play b&m for a while so i finally gave up, signed up for neteller, and tossed a grand in it a couple days ago. i'll probably be posting some online 8/16 hands soon [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Clarkmeister · #66 02-13-2003, 03:47 AM

"Averaged results like this should often be taken with a grain of salt."

Agreed 100%. However, when the gap is very large, it is difficult to just explain away the difference. And the game between KJs and JTs is very large. The gap between KTs and JTs is much smaller, but still significant.

"On another (more controversial note), if JTs was trivially unprofitable UTG to play, I would still play it. If AJo or KJs was, I would not."

As it turns out JTs is more than trivially unprofitable. And AJo and KJs are both very profitable. Much more so than conventional poker wisdom would have us believe.

"Here's an idea - create a starting hand strategy (similar in format to ones in HPFAP and on Abdul's site) using strictly the EV numbers, and noting the fact that we occaisionally play strangely on the first round to add deception, and see how some experts and wanna-be experts regard this starting hand strategy.

We could discuss the strategy itself, and see how it compares to HPFAP and Abdul's adivce. I think this would d create an interesting discussion. "

I did this privately myself some time ago, and discussed and tweaked the information based on input from some friends. It most closely resembles Abdul's recommendations, though there are a few differences.