This is an ace every single time

[TStoneMBD]

sorry but i think using the math you are trying to use here is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree about the fact that guessing a "random" number is better.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm playing poker for 13 years, and my educated guesses are far from random.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry but i think using the math you are trying to use here is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any answer uses some type of math, whether formal or not. I didn't even explain my method I was going to use. Unless we are guessing a completely random number, we must use some sort of math. I guess if you have run across this type of situation over and over again, you might be able to estimate it on past experiences, but I definetly can't do that. If others can, that is wonderful, and I hope they share their anecdotal evidence. I just think that the amount of trials in this type of situation we have had is not enough for an accurate answer. I do believe there is some form of math that can solve this using a few assumptions. Whether or not we agree on those assumptions is a different topic.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree about the fact that guessing a "random" number is better.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm playing poker for 13 years, and my educated guesses are far from random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. Random wasn't the word I was looking for, which was why I put it in quotes. I just couldn't figure out a better word to use. What I meant was that while going by your gut, and what you are used to is good, sometimes the "obvious" isn't always right. A ton of stuff we know we just take for granted, and it is right, and we know it is right. But there is also stuff which we think is right, but we don't actually know the numbers behind it, and we may be wrong. I think using math when it is available to us is a good way to check our educated guesses.

I agree that the math here may be a bit hard, and will use a lot of estimations. I don't think that using these estimations is bad though, because we are going to have to use estimations no matter what. I would just rather have them closer to the source of the problem then at a general level.

[tongni]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree about the fact that guessing a "random" number is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just [censored] guess. We aren't going to sit here and calculate how good we are every single time this comes up against an unknown opponent. If it's close then it probably doesn't matter what you do and to decide I think about what I did last time and do the opposite. This kind of thinking is what's really hurting your hourly earn, not refusing to solve stupid math problems.

Doesn't it all work together?

Very simply put, a guy who's playing for 30 years and never uses math will have a much more accurate guess than a math geek who's been playing for 3 months.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree about the fact that guessing a "random" number is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just [censored] guess. We aren't going to sit here and calculate how good we are every single time this comes up against an unknown opponent. If it's close then it probably doesn't matter what you do and to decide I think about what I did last time and do the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this mentality. If something's EV is roughly 0, it doesn't really matter all that much what we do, but in most cases the EV is not 0. There is usually an edge one way or the other, it just appears too complicated, so it too hard for us to say which way it goes. When this happens, we usually just simplify, and go one way or the other. While this isn't awful, I think we can learn if we figure out that one way may be quite a bit more profitable than the other. I am not saying that is necessarily the case here, I am just saying that it might be the case.

I think a perfect example is a hand earlier today where we raised preflop with QTo, and the flop was something like 259. It was bet into us, and we were asked what to do. Plenty of people said call, plenty said fold, plenty said raise. It is probably pretty close, and pretty hard to figure out what the best answer is, but I bet there is indeed a best answer, and that if we could figure it out, we should be doing it every time.

[Catt]

Spicy - math is good and often underutilized in some analyses here. However, you're trying to pencil out (Excel-out) an equation with XXX variables, each of which has x- XX% probability. Not only is the equation incredibly complicated due to the number of variables, but the output is entirely dependent on the assumptions we assign to each variable (which helps in part to derive the XX%). With nothing solid upon which to base the assumptions, and with the number of variables at play, penciling this out is not a productive use of time. This is one of many situations in which experience trumps a disinterested look at the euqations we might build.

[Spicymoose]

Meh. I guess I will give up now, as I seem to not only be in the minority, but the only one who agrees with myself. I agree with the fact that our assumptions could potentially change everything. It is awesome though when we come up with an equation, and our results show that even when we change our assumptions pretty drastically (within reason), our decision stays the same. This will not always be the same. Often a decision will swing one way or the other depending on how passive or agressive someone is, and how we assume they will play bottom or middle pair. All I am saying is that possibly we could be shown that one option (calling, folding) could be quite a bit better than the other.

Experience is great, I agree, and for the most part there are some really awesome people here who are just that good at knowing intuitively how good they are. I just also think that there are some cases where intuitively people "know" the answer, but in fact they are wrong. I don't know if this is the case here, but I think it could be.

I will stop arguing this point for now. Tomorrow I will attempt to do some math, and then you can all yell at me when you don't like the numbers I put up.