|
|
#51
04-26-2005, 03:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pure Theory Question
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully you see that it is worth giving him something with any hand exept AA or 32. [/ QUOTE ] Even with 32 offsuit, it would be worth giving your opponent a penny. 
|
|
#52
04-26-2005, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Theory Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hopefully you see that it is worth giving him something with any hand exept AA or 32. [/ QUOTE ] Even with 32 offsuit, it would be worth giving your opponent a penny. [/ QUOTE ] Why? So that you'd call if your opponent also had 32o? Why pay a penny when your EV is 0? Remember, there's no seed money in the pot, you're being laid 1 to 1. edit: Oh wait, I see the trick.
|
|
#53
04-26-2005, 04:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HINT
[ QUOTE ]
When you have K2, you can profitably pay up to $114.34 to see your opponent's cards. The information would be worth about $24 more if your cards are J7, by Pzhon's calculations. [/ QUOTE ] Check Pzhon's method. With T9, though it's a calling hand, he uses EV when he's ahead, rather than when he's behind. [ QUOTE ] T9s is about a 68.0% favorite over the 543 hands including nonpairs up to T-high and pairs up to 66. 44.3% of the time, T9s gets a gamble worth $360, for a value of about $160. T9s wins about 54.0% against a random hand for an expected win of $80. The value to T9s is about $160-$80 = $80. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#54
04-26-2005, 05:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HINT
[ QUOTE ]
but common sense says that K2 offsuit will be way up there. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it could possibly be a hand with such a low kicker. There is no hand that KQo is a favorite over that K2o is not other than K3-KJ. Against every other hand, KQo has a significantly bigger edge, or a significantly lower disadvantage. Since KQo is normally a clear call, KQo is still probably a worse choice than K2o, however, I believe this implies that T9o or 98o would have to be the answer.
|
|
#56
04-26-2005, 05:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Theory Question
[ QUOTE ]
Oh wait, I see the trick. [/ QUOTE ] I don't.
|
|
#57
04-26-2005, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Theory Question
If you have 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and you see your opponent's cards, you will be a small favourite against either 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] or 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
$1000 x 11894/1712304 x 2/1225 = $0.0113407289
|
|
#58
04-26-2005, 06:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Theory Question
good catch
|
|
#59
04-26-2005, 07:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: K2
What's JT?
|
|
#60
04-26-2005, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
what about T2o??
I said T2o earlier, and I cannot see how K2o can be worth paying more for than T2o. Exactly the same logic applies for the kicker, except T2o will benefit from more decisions where the kicker aspect doesnt come into play. I am sure that the info is worth more with T2o. I think that 92o may be worth a little less, only because I believe T2o is right around a 50% hand vs random and 92o is just below that.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
