I am awfully tight pre flop. And some others questions

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) A278n has a 13.6% overall win rate, but only 2.4% scoop rate against eight no fold 'em opponents playing random hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about 3/4 ing and amount won when you win? I don't think Wilson or Boston have that included, but intuitively it seems like your big wins there are going to be when you have A2 for low with someone else and you make a straight/two pair for high.

I got Boston's book (nice reco, thanks), and think it's helpful, but it seems like the pots you win with decent A2xx hands should be relatively bigger and the ones you "lose" often still get you 1/4 or little loses.

Wheras the pots you win with, say, reasonable AAxx hands are samller cause more people folded or misses their hands so aren't jamming.

or maybe my AAxx hands just haven't held up much recently [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
--Greg

[AKsPRO]

Guys, thank you for your reponses.
Whats comments about this?
[ QUOTE ]
Hm, and maybe I should try PLO8? Blinds are not so big and I could concentate on post-flop play. Also I heard PLO8 is more profitable...

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I will continue play limit and improve my game style. But what about just try PLO8?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
But what about 3/4 ing and amount won when you win? I don't think Wilson or Boston have that included,

[/ QUOTE ]

They do have that included. If a hand wins for high and gets quartered for low (a 3/4 win) 0.5 wins are added to the high-only total and 0.25 wins are added to the low-only total. Thus every 1.0 point for high is either from
• two wins for high, but with an opponent getting all or a share of low,
• four two way ties for high, but with an opponent getting all or a share of low,
• six three way ties for high, but with an opponent getting all or a share of low,
• eight four way ties for high, but with an opponent getting all or a share of low.
The same sort of thing is true for wins that are counted as low wins.
Scoops, of course, are counted neither as high wins (although some scoops are with purely high-only hands) nor as low wins, but are counted in a separate scoop column. Each scoop counts as exactly 1 win.

[ QUOTE ]
but intuitively it seems like your big wins there are going to be when you have A2 for low with someone else and you make a straight/two pair for high.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't necessarily seem that way to me. My experience is that a huge scooper sometimes comes when you have a hand that gets a perfect river card.

For example, you might have A5KK, and be playing after a flop of 34K-rainbow, then have the turn be a nine of the fourth suit and the river be a deuce. You end up with a wheel for the scoop. Whether the pot is huge or not depends on who else has been in the hand with you and how much action they give.

As a second example, maybe you have 34QQd, see the flop of 67Q, then the turn is another seven and the river a nine. You scoop a huge pot when no opponent has quad sevens.

Win a big one by getting three quarters when you eke out a win for high with two pair and also share the nut low with an opponent who was jamming like a fool? Sure, that can happen too. But you also can easily end up with just a quarter of that pot.

[ QUOTE ]
I got Boston's book (nice reco, thanks), and think it's helpful, but it seems like the pots you win with decent A2xx hands should be relatively bigger and the ones you "lose" often still get you 1/4 or little loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recall advising you that you'd be happier with the source of Boston's book, Wilson's simulator. But whatever.

Boston used a line-up of very tight players for his simulations, very unlike the line-ups I regularly face. In a very tight game, A2xx hands don't do as well, while AAxx hands do much better, than against the typical loose or semi-loose line-up I usually face. Thus Boston's results are heavily skewed in favor of hands that do well against a tight, tough line-up.

But hands that do well against a tight, tough line-up don't necessarily do very well against a more typical looser, softer line-up. Meanwhile other hands that don't do very well against Boston's choice of characters fare reasonably well against the typically looser characters I regularly encounter.

But in any event, Boston still used Wilson's simulator, and presented Wilson's results for the "win high" and "win low" columns.

A hand that won exclusively for high but got quartered for low would add 0.50 to Boston's "win high" column and add 0.25 to the "win low" column.

Would your win rate be the same for a particular hand as the particular Wilson character Mr. Boston chose to play the hand against the group of Wilson characters Mr. Boston chose for opponents? Would you fold and stay with the same programmed parameters as the particular Wilson character chosen to play the sample hand? Would your opponents fold or stay the same as the Wilson characters chosen? These are all rhetorical questions.

I don't mean to seem critical of Mr. Boston. On the contrary, I appreciate his work.

Buzz

[MyTurn2Raise]

#3 What was I thinking?

[gergery]

Buzz,

Have you tried to replicate any of Boston's work with looser tables?

[theben]

personally, i beleive any A2XX is playable and profitable from any position (for one bet) in your typical micro PP game