Trying to help a fellow player - feedback please!

[John Biggs]

Sorry, I guess. But you aggravated me especially in your posts by not bothering to look up Morton's Theorem after I had hammered on its importance several times; you dismissed it with an offhand reference to "schooling." Since you seemed to be otherwise intelligent, this negligence really bothered me. And I found your own first response to me to be extremely condescending in tone, though you may not be aware of it.

FYI, your head-up example was totally besides the point, as you'll see if you now trouble yourself to read Krieger's article (I've posted it for your convenience). In head-up situations, Morton's Theorem CAN'T apply by definition.

[John Biggs]

... for your thoughtful reply--quite a bit more thoughtful than my own rants.

I do find it strange that an assortment of 2+2'ers playing at the extreme low limits find themselves in disagreement with poker authorities possessed of immeasurably greater experience and theoretical knowledge. But as you say, there is no need to agree on these things, and everyone has their own experience to work with as first teacher. The best way to settle it would be to track EV/hour for different strategies over many hours, but who has time for that?

[pokertronic]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the one yutz you're worried about in a super-loose game, it's the crowd of yutzes who will not only call your raise preflop, but call your flop bet with middle or bottom pair, a gutshot, or a backdoor, and call your turn bet ditto. Against just one yutz, you're a favorite. Against many yutzes, your one-pair hand (which is what AQ or AK will usually build) is a dog.

PLEASE read Morton's Theorem, then come back and post again when you've thought it through. I believe if you search the Web you'll find not only the original theorem, but discussions of it by Mike Caro and others.

[/ QUOTE ]

what your saying makes perfect sense from my experience, ill have to check out the mortons thing....

[Ed Miller]

From Krieger's article:
[ QUOTE ]
The mathematics of Morton's Theorem shows that there is a range of pot sizes (in this particular case, between 6.25 and 8.5 big bets) when it is correct for the player holding second pair to fold, and you make more money when he plays correctly and folds than you will when he chases.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my post:
This is where you are mistaken. Yes, you are correct. In a 3-way pot where you hold the boss made hand, there are two draws against you, one solid and one weak, there is a range of pot sizes where the weak draw loses money by calling... and so do you.

From Krieger's article:
[ QUOTE ]
Morton observed that the schooling phenomenon increased the variance of the player who flops top pair with A-K, and he theorized that it also increased his expectation in the long run - particularly when compared to games in which opponents correctly fold their weak draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my post:
The "schooling" effect that people love to talk about, however, is often not particularly big, even when there are several draws against you.

How exactly did you reach the conclusion that I didn't read the article? As a matter of fact, I've read this article, Caro's article, and the original RGP post several times before.

Here is my point again.

Morton's Theorem says that for a certain range of pot sizes, weak draws can cost both themselves and the boss made hand money by calling. The person who profits from this is someone with a stronger draw.

This is your argument, as it has been stated thus far in this thread: "You should keep the pot small preflop with AQo because of Morton's Theorem."

My point is, "Huh?" How does the fact that weak draws can cost you money by calling mean that you should keep the pot small preflop? When you fail to raise preflop, you lose money. How much money? Well, it depends on the size of your preflop edge. Yes, when the pot is big preflop, you make less money after the flop with a one pair hand. But how much less? Well, it depends on how many draws there are against you. The point is that there is a tradeoff. When you raise preflop, you make less money after the flop. When you limp preflop, you make less money before the flop. Which is better? That is not clear... and you have done absolutely nothing to reconcile this tradeoff.

The headsup example was just designed to show that, simply because you lose money after the flop doesn't mean that it is wrong to raise preflop. It obviously was not intended to capture the "Morton's Theorem" effect.

[Mike]

Your post is about telling your friend he is spending his money in the wrong way. It is something I would consider before telling a friend how to spend his money. If your friendship is solid, good for you! :-)

[John Biggs]

I believe M's T. applies to other than three-way situations--that was just the example Krieger chose to give in his summary.

Aside from that, I know of only two ways to resolve the question: First, with historical records--in this case, using PokerTracker or PokerStat to see how AQ unraised preflop does versus how it does raised, when playing in a very loose, micro-limit game such as $.50/$1. The problem is it's hard to isolate all the variables, so you get an apples to oranges comparison. So I often prefer the second approach, which is to assume some variables and make a hypothetical calculation of EV from those assumptions. I usually use combinations when doing this, which is a huge amount of math to do by hand. Sometimes I supplement my calculations with data from Caro's Poker Probe or similar to-the-river software, even though it's a blunt instrument for the job. At the moment I am in the middle of a rush job and don't have the time to do it right, but at some point I might try. If I do I'll post my analysis (however puerile) on the forum.

Actually, a third way just occurred to me--if either PokerStat or PokerTracker allow this, it would be interesting to see how many pots are taken down by a one-pair hand (such as top pair, good kicker) at a limit like $.50/$1 versus ditto at progressively higher limits. Since drawing hands likely win a bigger percentage of the pots at low limits than at medium and high limits, a strategy shift is in order. And if preflop spending is a limited resource (and I think it is), then where do you want to put your money? In a very, very loose game, I'd rather limp my weaker offsuit hands such as AQ, since they won't do as well as at a higher limit, and save the extra chips for limping a few more drawing hands than I would in a tougher game.

[sucka]

Your post is about telling your friend he is spending his money in the wrong way.

I could care less how he 'spends' his money. The purpose of this post to discuss his theory on playing in low limit games. True, that somehow correlates with how he spends his money but that's certianly not the prevailing theme here.

[squiffy]

Yes with a much higher percentage of players seeing the flop and staying in all the way to the showdown, the average winning hand must a higher at 1-2 online than say 15-30.

Perhaps 2-pair at 1-2 and top pair at 15-30 might be the average winning hands. Just a WAG -- wild donkey guess!!!

[pokertronic]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post is about telling your friend he is spending his money in the wrong way.

I could care less how he 'spends' his money. The purpose of this post to discuss his theory on playing in low limit games. True, that somehow correlates with how he spends his money but that's certianly not the prevailing theme
here.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, yeah, duh, the net effect of playing poker poorly or even just not optimately, is losing money
but getting him to play to his potential is the point here