Math Question

RPatterson · #1 08-15-2004, 09:41 PM

Down to 5 with 950 chips and 150bb I moved in on the button with K7 and the big stack in the bb called with TJ and hit. I was thinking to myself about what a stuipid call that was but then I wondered if he was actually getting the right odds, if he could see my hole cards.

Roughly he's calling 800 to win 1150. 800 divided by 1150 is 69%. Was this a plus ev by 9% or negative ev?

Also he had like 4000 chips and I had been very quiet. Do you guys like his call at all? It might have been plus EV since I held K7 but I think in general it was horrible.

MikeGuz · #2 08-15-2004, 10:12 PM

Law of the tournament jungle - big stacks take on small ones to bust them out hang the odds. I was in a tournament last week 5 left I had 52s on the button and called both blinds who were all in and it was a very small part of my stack. My job was to try to bust them out.

It's strategy not math here.

RPatterson · #3 08-15-2004, 10:37 PM

It's strategy for the big stack to try to bust short stacks on the bubble by calling with inferior hands? Time to rethink your strategy.

Gramps · #4 08-15-2004, 11:43 PM

If he only needs to pay 800 to win 1150, then based on pot odds, he was clearly correct to call. He's only about 5 to 4 dog. Non-dominated connectors do pretty well against an overcard/undercard combo heads up. What suit the cards are (do you share any suits for 1-card flush possibilities) can change things a percent or two, but regardless he had "odds to call. But he's only about +EV by 3% or so - he only needs to win about 41% of the time (800/1950) to be neutral EV, he wins about 44% of the time (roughly).

http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b...+Td%0D%0AKc+7s

Doesn't mean it's the right play when factoring in other "meta-tournament" factors, but strictly based on pot odds, it was. Based on your postion and short stack, he was probably right to suspect that you were pushing some crappy/semi-crappy hand, but I still don't think it's a good play for him, since he could be dominated by semi-crap/lose a chunk of his huge chip gap that he could use to start really pushing people around with.

RPatterson · #5 08-16-2004, 12:53 AM

He's like a 5 to 3 dog.

Gramps · #6 08-16-2004, 01:14 AM

55% to 44% = .55/.44 = 5 to 4

RPatterson · #7 08-16-2004, 01:31 AM

I thought an overcard vs. two middle cards was 60/40. I don't need to see that 55/44 is 5 to 4.

Edge34 · #8 08-16-2004, 01:46 AM

Hey ero,

One question - Why were you moving in with K7 in the first place? Even if you're the short stack I don't like this play much unless you're totally desperately out-stacked. Not to mention, if he had a REALLY big stack, since I don't know how many paid or what the other stacks were, I don't mind this play too much, since he could very well have had you pushing some trash hand, and you were in a way.

-Edge

RPatterson · #9 08-16-2004, 02:27 AM

I had I think like 5xbb and the table was 5 handed. I'll take K7 vs. two random blinds hands over hoping I pick up something better in the next 3 hands that doesn't run into a better hand since it's against more players.

Gramps · #10 08-16-2004, 03:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need to see that 55/44 is 5 to 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

E: Hey guys, I have a math question.
G: Here's the answer, you were a 5 to 4 dog (with attached link to twodimes.net showing result), your opponent wins 44% of the time and had odds to call.
E: No, I was a 5 to 3 dog.
G: No...he was a 55% to 44% favorite, you were a 5 to 4 dog
E: You don't need to tell me that 55/44 is 5 to 4...

Apparently I did (and by the way, 60/40 is 3:2, not 5:3, but I'm sure you know that)

When you play SNGs, go to www.twodimes.net, and plug all the heads up encounters you come across into the poker hand analyzer. You'll develop a better understanding of how hands to HU vs. each other. It's a very useful tool.