What I hate the most - 2pr on 4th

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
Jon, that’s very interesting.
Your calculations look good to me. You assumed that hero always folds if he doesn’t hit his boat, right? (So the “future action” is usually 2BB).

[/ QUOTE ]

Right you are.

[RayGarlington]

I like the way you have encorporated the 2 dimes sims into your logic and analysis. In regards to your "future action" idea, it think you need to add something...

[ QUOTE ]
Well, in order to be even money you need to win the pot 33% of the time. But you are gonna win 39% of the time. So you have an edge of 6% on the action that you get from your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is correct so far as your opponents future action; however, your future action must also be considered. In the best case scenario in the example hand, every time you put in 1BB, your pot equity for that bet is .4BB; so, every time you do that you lose .6BB

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the way you have encorporated the 2 dimes sims into your logic and analysis. In regards to your "future action" idea, it think you need to add something...

[ QUOTE ]
Well, in order to be even money you need to win the pot 33% of the time. But you are gonna win 39% of the time. So you have an edge of 6% on the action that you get from your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is correct so far as your opponents future action; however, your future action must also be considered. In the best case scenario in the example hand, every time you put in 1BB, your pot equity for that bet is .4BB; so, every time you do that you lose .6BB

[/ QUOTE ]


If you're pot equity is 39% and you have 3 opponents you get 39% of 3 bets. Or 1.17BB, but it cost you 1BB to gain that. So you have an overlay of .17 BB....which is roughly 6% of the future action on that street.

I really think I'm right here. But because I don't understand your criticism I might be missing what you are pointing out.

[Andy B]

[ QUOTE ]
In the best case scenario in the example hand, every time you put in 1BB, your pot equity for that bet is .4BB; so, every time you do that you lose .6BB

[/ QUOTE ]

It's three ways, right? So if he has 40% equity and is putting in 33.3333333333333333% of the money, he is gaining, not losing.

[RayGarlington]

Well, things seem clearer this morning!

I was only giving us credit for 6% of the opponents bets then looking at our bet in isolation. i.e. I should have been thinking "for every bet that goes in I get 40%, the opponents split 60%" or the way Andy put it "we're putting in 33% and our equity is 40% so we're gaining not losing"

rats. someday I'll be right.

[BeerMoney]

Grb,

What do you think of the hand?

One point that hasn't been made is that if you fill, you're likely to be good. (I say this because of the dead king.)

You also have to note that you could get trapped in the middle for a raise at some point, which would kill your odds.

Would you guys say that this is a situation where having this pot multiway is advantageous?

To Ray Garlington: Believing we have an edge only when we have more than a 50% chance of winning is a big mistake.

Think about it this way.. Why do we raise with aces, even in a multiway pot on 3rd? Not because we expect to win more than 50%, but because we expect to win more than 1/N where n is the number of opponents.

This is why drawing hands are so powerful in stud, and often shouldn't be looked at as a draw. There are draws where we are simply calling because of the size of the pot, and there are draws that make us a favorite against the field. (An open ended straight flush draw on fourth... Or trips on 5th against a made straight with 2 or more opponents if our cards are live.)

[jon_1van]

1. I think your ability to call down drastically changes if you've seen one of your 7s or Ts
2. I think your ability to call down would be very low if you had 22TT instead of 77TT. (drastically weakens 1/2 of your outs)

3. I still don't know what to do if you get heads up on 5th. Because now your odds aren't as good but your chances of winning probably haven't changed much. So any idea what you do if KK folds on 5th and 33 keeps firing? (I'm guessing call down...I'm also guessing that this is very close to neutral EV) Also what happens if on 5th you see 1 of you cards drop? Does this make you fold? Does 2 make you fold? (it probably should)

thoughts?

[RayGarlington]

Chip Reese in his section of SS cites an example where he pushed a hand with only a slight advantage over his opponent. The take-home message was that pushing slight advantages makes sense when your opponent is of equal or greater skill, but not when playing with those with less skill.

In this case, when the 3 double bets, and it is called by the K, the pot is ~4.4 big bets at decision time for the hero. If you use some of the more likely possibilities (rather than the best case scenario), you have his equity at ~2.8 * 4.4 = 1.2BB. At this point, hero is deciding to invest another big bet, to win 1.2. Looking forward, he will contribute 33% of the pot, losing about 5% of each bet. The more I think about this hand, the more I agree with the position of folding and waiting for a bigger edge.

[grb137]

The more I think about this hand, the more I think I misplayed it and simply got lucky.

Since we have the benefit of seeing the results, I think we can dissect out everyone's thinking and decide what the "right" decision was.

First of all, as I had suspected, Seat 1 did not have trip treys. He probably had a small pair in the hole or maybe even A-Q or some nonsense like that. Seat 3 probably wasn't as sure as I was, and so he called with his two pair.

I think this is where I should have strongly suspected Kings up in seat 3, because if he held trips, he woulda raised, and if he had a drawing hand, he would have folded, figuring it wasn't worth the risk against possible trip 3s with a K already dead.

However, since he DID call, I think a call was the right decision because of the effective odds that jon described in his post, at least in so far as 4th street is concerned, since I was guaranteed a 3-way pot.

Now, when 5th comes around, and the Kings catch a three, he realizes that Seat 1 aint got crap and figures his Ks up is good, and so he bets. At this point, I should have been 100% certain that he was Kings up. So, I can call correctly only if I'm sure that seat 1 will also call. I think most decent players holding seat 1's cards would fold at this point if he's in a 3-way pot with junk, and so I should have folded here assuming seat 1 wouldn't be calling. However, I was married to my 2pr at this point, and called. Luckily for me, seat 1 called too. At this point, I should have been confident of my opponent's hands: seat 1 A-?-3-3 or baby pair-3-3 and seat 3: Kings up.

So when I hit my ten on 6th, seat 1 realizes he's drawing dead with his 2 pair (or, alternatively, his lone 3s are toast) and drops. Seat 6, of course, is married to his two pair and calls it down.

So in summary, 4th was a good call, and 5th is a good call only if seat 1 is dumb and calls behind me. Usually, most 20/40 players are NOT that dumb, and so I probably should have folded 5th under the assumption seat 1 would be folded as well.

I think the lesson here is this: poker is a human game. We can look at simulation results, but the correct play ultimately turns on human decisions that math can't predict (i.e. in this case, whether seat 1 will call with his junk hand).

Major geek moment: Anybody ever see the episode of Star Trek The Next Generation where Data is invited to the officer's poker game? He was convinced he'd win because of his computing abilities, and 'ole Commander Riker just smiled smugly.

[jon_1van]

I mention what a crappy spot getting heads up on 5th is in a recent post....but then the pot is soo much bigger [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]