Challanging Ed Miller's Criticism of Lee Jones

[pokerjo22]

I think Leavenfishes assumptions are better than yours! The way you're working it out is to assume that the people seeing the flop have called with any two cards. Instead you need to come up with the set of hands that Party players will limp with. And here I side with Leavenfish - that set is going to contain a lot of Ace high hands.

[Leavenfish]

I clearly can not respond to each post but I thank all for their imput.

Phil,
Assuming your math is correct and it's 70% and not the "around 80%" estimated, I hardly consider the difference substantial...in fact, I consider it more a validation.

Also, you are assuming a few things. One, that on the after the flop betting we will always have KK betting with the Mystery Hand simply calling all the way, even on the times he has no Ace nor anything that could beat something likely to have been raised by KK player, such as KK. If indeed the mystery hand is playing the Ace, he may well even begin raising as nothing to come may threaten his top pair...he may also abandon his hand on those instances where he indeed has nothing. Those instances will skew your calculations of profitability for KK.

And finally you mention that Ed is making two points here (actually he does not attempt to make ANY points, he is simply saying that Lee is wrong--no stats or math to back up his ascertion in this example):

1. When a fish simply calls, this tells you almost nothing about their hand.
--- Precisely why I say that I have trouble with those saying Bayes Theorem is applicable...yet we DO know their propensity to play A/Any...and that in a 10 handed pre-flop (20 cards) an Ace is in play 70% (if my around 80% is wrong) of the time...and there is a reasonable chance that TWO aces could have been dealt pre-flop just by going on simple randomness--20 of 52 cards are in play pre-flop and there are 4 Aces...so 1 in every 13 cards on average is an Ace...it's obviously no great stretch to think that a second one might even be in play.

2. You must always factor in the size of the pot. Because of the size of this pot, it is profitable to show down your KK even if you lose 70% of the time.
--- True, the size of the pot is always a factor...but he does not even mention that let along try to make that case. Still, if it's just going to be KK and Mystery Hand heads up from here on out in the hand example, how on earth can KK lose 70% of the time and have going to the show down be profitable? That doesn't make sense.

I disagree with your math, again because you assume only certain things and exclude others--such as the Mystery Hand beginning to bet or raise later in the hand or simply folding before the end when he does not have the Ace. Furthermore, you do not consider the possibility that the Mystery Hand --even if he did not have an Ace pre-flop, could pair both his two hole cards (2 of 6 outs if it's a random, generic hand) while the KK must turn another K (1 of 2 outs)-- or get a straight or backdoor flush, each of which is also available to the Mystery Hand...those unlikely, but possible (I just give them as examples)....just pointing out that there are lots to consider and we simply do not know what will come on 4th and 5th street from the example or the betting on those streets under those eventualities.
I am just saying that you can not be so certain in your profitability statement above and then use that as justification for "sometimes" over "probably".

[AKQJ10]

WLLH was supposed to be a simple book for relative beginners; no one disputes that. If Lee Jones had felt compelled to show all his supporting assumptions and math to justify each use of "probably", the book would run at least 5000 pages, and no beginner would read it.

I really think we're back to where the other thread started -- the differences between Miller and Jones are differences in opinion. Opinion about a fact, sure, but a fact that cannot be independently verified.

[Phil Van Sexton]

I'm not making any assumptions. Ignore all the betting. If there is an Ace on the flop and you don't have one, there's a 70% chance that someone was dealt one pre-flop. It's just math and cannot be argued.

If you guys want to interpret the betting and say "well, 2 people called so they probably do have an Ace, let's make it 80%"....that's your opinion.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming your math is correct and it's 70% and not the "around 80%" estimated, I hardly consider the difference substantial...in fact, I consider it more a validation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This difference is HUGE. In Phil's example the hand pays 3:1


win 0.30 * $3 = $0.90
lose 0.70 * $1 = -$0.70
profit = $0.90 - $0.70 = +$0.20


win 0.20 * $3 = $0.60
lose 0.80 * $1 = -$0.80
loss = $0.60 - $0.80 = -$0.20

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
even if he did not have an Ace pre-flop, could pair both his two hole cards (2 of 6 outs if it's a random, generic hand) while the KK must turn another K (1 of 2 outs)--

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to re-read the hidden outs section (I think that's the section, I don't have SSH in front of me).

KK has more than 2 outs against a non-Ace two pair hand.

[fyodor]

Miller's comments are concerning what to do on the turn after your opponent has only called on the flop.

Probability he has an Ace based on math alone:

Known cards are now = 6
Missing Aces = 3
Unkown hole cards = 18
Chances someone was dealt an Ace 3/(52-6)x18=1.17

Chances are 1 Ace was dealt. Does you opponent have it? He only called. Should you now go into checkdown mode? I guess if you are a weak tight underachiever you can. I bet again and re-evaluate based on if he now raises me.

[Phil Van Sexton]

Here is the quote from Ed...

[ QUOTE ]
[Jones says]...'if someone calls, the caller probably has at least an ace or better.' In low-limit games, that simply isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed is NOT saying "I think there's only a 25% chance he has an Ace."

He is saying "when someone calls, it tells you almost nothing about their hand."

If you can infer nothing from the betting, you have no choice but to go by the numbers alone. I ran the numbers so we'd have an accurate starting point for this discussion. If you go by the #s alone, it is profitable to continue to showdown with KK.

I could continue to explain the numbers to you, but that's not the point. Ed's point was simply "don't read into calls from bad players". You are trying to do just that (amoung other things).

I think if Ed had to do it over, he wouldn't use the word "sometimes" since it would cause confusion like this and cause people to miss his point entirely. Don't get caught up on 1 word. Read the whole book and then his point may become clearer.

[Rudbaeck]

If you are correct about your thoughts about llhe games, then do you even bother raising with KK before the flop? Bet it at all before the river? I mean, you seem to think there will always be an ace out to get you, and that an ace will come on the board.

Why not fold that crap pre-flop instead of losing money on it? :P

And it IS possible to lift a loose goose of an ace/any even at Party 2/4. Then you get to hear them complain about their stupid laydown... And then they will call you down 3-4 times with rubbish, and you can start all over again.

My kings over the 6k hands I've played since SSHE show a bigger profit than they did before. Not a big sample, but I still believe tight/aggressive is better than tight/passive. And I'll carry on believing it as long as 2+2 does.


We can do all the great advice that Miller is opposed to.

Fold to all aces if you have a lower pair.
Never draw to a straight if there is a two-flush on the flop.
Never draw to a straight or a flush if there is a pair on the flop.
If someone suddenly comes alive when a three-flush comes on the turn always fold.
Drop your pair if a straight combination in the 'danger zone' around JT comes.

No dangers left, we avoid all monsters. Oh dear, did you just drop from 3.5BB/100 to 0.5BB/100? Well, you avoided all the monsters, no more losing your money. :P

[Nottom]

I don't really feel like doing any math, but let me just say that I think a lot of what Ed is saying is that the guy calling doesn't have to have an Ace while Lee seems to think that the caller adds significantly to the chance that an A is out there.

In this respect, I have to aggress with Ed. Average low limit callers mean basically nothing to me, I see people call flop bets with 2 undercards no draw on a regular basis, the fact that there is a caller just doesn't really affect my decision a whole lot.