I think my biggest leak is... - Page 2

Saborion · #11 07-25-2004, 08:03 PM

In Clark's reply to the post about what to do with A4s in the CO after a few limpers + 2 posters that checked when the action was on them he said to raise, not stating why. Maybe he didn't say why because he thought it was so obvious. Or maybe it was because he wanted people to think a bit, then maybe ask him if it was for the reasons they could come up with. I don't know, but I hope it was because he wanted them to think about it since there's a big difference between having to come up with something yourself and reading about it.

I used to follow "set rules", and I still do, but I'm trying to get away from it, opening up/loosen up a bit. Lately it's been working out pretty nice, and I feel I'm getting there.

sthief09 · #12 07-25-2004, 08:06 PM

I'm sure he did it on purpose. I like when they tell us something, but don't way why.

joker122 · #13 07-25-2004, 08:15 PM

I agree for the most part with your post. One thing I'm not sure about is you assertion that misplaying overcards (you listed AK specifically, but we could be talking about any 2 big cards such as AQ, AJ, KQ etc.) can't be a big leak. You will miss the flop 66% of the time with these hands. Isn't 66% frequent enough to become a big leak?

I forget who it was but maybe a month ago someone posted a typical AK hand that missed the flop. He prefaced his post with a confession that he was an overall loser with AKo and AKs after a substantial number of hands in his PT database. AKs and AKo are my 3rd and 5th winningest hands in terms of BB/Hand. Now, he was in the negative with each of them. If that's not a leak I don't know what is.

Saborion · #14 07-25-2004, 08:25 PM

Well, he do appear to be somewhat smart.

Guido · #15 07-25-2004, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I forget who it was but maybe a month ago someone posted a typical AK hand that missed the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was Big Endian if I spelled it correctly.

And no, like Ed or Clark explained in that thread even after that many hands it doesn't have to be a leak.

Guido

joker122 · #16 07-25-2004, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

And no, like Ed or Clark explained in that thread even after that many hands it doesn't have to be a leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but Big Endian was just one example. My point is that big cards still miss 2/3 of the time which I think is frequent enough to qualify as a big leak.

Ed Miller · #17 07-25-2004, 10:16 PM

One time I walked by the MIT field and saw that Home was up 35-0 in the second quarter.

Actually, they played competitively for their league. It always seemed like we were 6-5 or something for the year. But I actually watched a few games more or less beginning to end, and my high school team was WAY better.

Then again Peyton Manning played on my high school team... so I guess I'd be damn surprised if it wasn't way better.

Ed Miller · #18 07-25-2004, 10:27 PM

OK, but Big Endian was just one example. My point is that big cards still miss 2/3 of the time which I think is frequent enough to qualify as a big leak.

I'll grant you medium leak. But people overestimate the size of that particular leak because of the nature of overcards.

They are a high variance proposition even when played correctly. Most of the time you play your overcards, you will end up losing an extra bet or two. Occasionally you pick up a pot by playing them correctly. So after people lose ten overcard hands in a row, they sometimes tend to say, "I'm just throwing my money away on these damn overcards." That thought gets people to, "Maybe I shouldn't raise preflop in the first place so I wouldn't feel so tied to them after the flop. Then I could just fold correctly like I want to."

To some extent, they are like 16 against a 10 in blackjack. People wrack their brains about how to play that situation... and the reality is that it doesn't much matter what they do. Hitting and standing are pretty close. The reason they think so hard is because no matter what they do IT'S GONNA TURN OUT BADLY. There's no way to turn 16 against a 10 into a rosy situation.

Same thing with overcards. Generally with ace-king, you will have raised preflop so the pot is usually big enough to take one off on the flop. But people think it's such a tough decision because no matter what you do, it's not gonna be pretty. You went from excellent starting hand to very marginal situation in two seconds.

You are usually gonna lose when you flop overcards. That causes people psychologically to draw the mistaken conclusion that their play of overcards is a much bigger money loser than it probably actually is on average.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way. NO ONE plays ace-king, suited or offsuit, poorly enough to turn it into a net long-term money loser. No one. The hand is too good.

Vern · #19 07-26-2004, 06:21 AM

Ed,

I have read your book and must say that I think I could have gotten a 100% on your pre-flop questions in the back just from reading these boards and a small amount of play. Once we got to the flop questions, there was one play I think I had been choosing differently than your theories recommended. Then on the turn and river I was finding my answers either too aggressive or too passive compared to your answer to a number of your questions. When working through them I would cover up your answer, read the question, give myself about 20 seconds to answer then go, "Doh! That cannot be right?" Then I read a well thought out reason for the action and the theory I read in the book comes into focus. I have not had a lot of time to play since my first read through, but if you do a second book, include even more of those post flop questions in that format. So far, that has exposed more problems with my understanding of your theories than reading the chapters that contained the theories and trying to compare the theory to "how I play" while reading. Thanks a load.

Vern

Edit: I used the word 'theory' because I do not intend to become an "Ed Milller told me to" player or any author for that fact. I want to be an, "Ed Miller helped me understand why" player and so far I am grateful for the edification.

Guido · #20 07-26-2004, 07:00 AM

As far as I remember he was down with AKs not with AKo. He had AKs about 400-500 times so it's not impossible to be down after pumping up the pot a couple of times and not hit...

I agree that when you lose with both AKo and AKs after more than 100K hands you are probably doing something wrong...

Guido