Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Limit Texas Hold'em > Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 10-11-2005, 06:12 PM
tablecop tablecop is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not familiar with the example, but claim AA in no limit is always profitable. Move in preflop. Perhaps you meant pot-limit with deep stacks?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the example the person with AA is not aware his opponent knows he has AA every hand. Pot-limit with deep stacks could play out the same way I imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's wrong as well. folded to SB who makes a raise small in comparison to both blinds stacks, at that point SB's hand is revealed to be AA (both players know the BB knows). with what range of hands can the BB profitably call? DS says all hands.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-11-2005, 06:18 PM
LearnedfromTV LearnedfromTV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Van down by the river
Posts: 176
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not familiar with the example, but claim AA in no limit is always profitable. Move in preflop. Perhaps you meant pot-limit with deep stacks?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the example the person with AA is not aware his opponent knows he has AA every hand. Pot-limit with deep stacks could play out the same way I imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's wrong as well. folded to SB who makes a raise small in comparison to both blinds stacks, at that point SB's hand is revealed to be AA (both players know the BB knows). with what range of hands can the BB profitably call? DS says all hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

And he's right. Although I heard about this as a problem given by Chris Ferguson a few years ago at an rgp convention. The idea is that the implied odds of outflopping combined with the opportunity to three-barrel bluff, two-barrel bluff/semi-bluff, and one-barrel bluff/semi-bluff each with optimal frequency make it impossible for AA to profit.

The reason Sklansky had to use KK instead of AA for a limit example is the opponent can't make pot-size bluffs so correct bluffing frequency is much lower. I.E. AA is correct to just call down. I'm not convinced KK is.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-11-2005, 09:12 PM
Sparks Sparks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 33
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

[ QUOTE ]
- you have to pay the blinds. Subtract $180 / hr.
- Ax can call profitably from the blinds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh yes. Note that the blinds are 20 and 30. Also, I'm not so sure that Ax is profitable. Even with Ax suited, it only wins 1/3 of the time when going to showdown.

Revised formula for win rate:

(37 x 50) - (3.7 x 50) = 1665
3 x (90 + 60 + 120 +120) = 1170

So if you play like a robot, always bet, call, and don't re-raise, you'll make 1665 - 1170 = 495/hour. The above equation assumes the worst case scenario when you're in the blind and get three bet PF for $90. In reality your profit would be a little higher than $495.

Sparks
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-11-2005, 09:28 PM
Sparks Sparks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 33
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

[ QUOTE ]
. Ax is definitely playable from either blind and probably outside the blinds as well, although somewhat marginal there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you assuming a raise every time PF from KK? If not, you should be, I think.

Sparks
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-11-2005, 09:38 PM
elindauer elindauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 292
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a typical ten handed 30-60 game where you normally make $50 an hour, what would your win rate be if you were dealt two face up kings every hand and your opponents didn't collude? (Assume 40 hands per hour.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would anyone who is serious about poker care about the answer to this question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. Good question. I find it interesting for two reasons:

1. I think the first step to understanding poker well is seening how the game would be played with perfect information. This question is a bit more complicated than that base case, but still provides some intersting math and discussion about bluffing frequency etc.

2. It's interesting to compare your expected win when your cards are known to the average win of KK when dealt face down. It helps put a real number on the value of deception.


I can see that it's a somewhat theoretical concept though that might not interest you. I'm sure you could be a great poker player and never think about things like this.

my 2 cents.
Eric
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-11-2005, 09:40 PM
elindauer elindauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 292
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. Ax is definitely playable from either blind and probably outside the blinds as well, although somewhat marginal there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you assuming a raise every time PF from KK? If not, you should be, I think.

Sparks

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Of course I'm assuming KK raises. If there was no raise, we wouldn't be having a discussion about what hands were playable from the big blind! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Eric
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-11-2005, 09:42 PM
elindauer elindauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 292
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure that Ax is profitable. Even with Ax suited, it only wins 1/3 of the time when going to showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Sparks,

You don't have to show it down just because you called the flop. Ax is definitely playable from the blinds if KK will call down an ace-high board.

good luck.
eric
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-11-2005, 09:50 PM
Eric P Eric P is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: chicago
Posts: 334
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

I think that your opponents don't know you have pocket kings for the sake of this example
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-11-2005, 11:04 PM
LarsVegas LarsVegas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 75
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

I am right in thinking that if someone chose to play sub-par hands with some potential against you, hoping others would enter the pot with them, that the KK would be worse off if several pots go four or five way?

And players will be "colluding" in an honest non-colluding way against you still, in multiway pots. You can probably see why in a three-way, more bets are going to go in between two-pair (having the KK beaten of course) and a straight.

Lars
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-11-2005, 11:05 PM
LarsVegas LarsVegas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 75
Default Re: Hypothetical Question

I am right in thinking that if someone chose to play sub-par hands with some potential against you, hoping others would enter the pot with them, that the KK would be worse off if several pots go four or five way?

And players will be "colluding" in an honest non-colluding way against you still, in multiway pots. You can probably see why in a three-way, more bets are going to go in between two-pair (having the KK beaten of course) and a straight, as long as the KK is still in there paying off bets too.

Lars
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.