John Vorhaus and Killer Poker

[Dov]

I know that this post revolves around a book, but the concept is theory, so I put it here.

John wrote a 2nd companion book to his original 'Killer Poker' called 'Killer Poker Holdem Hanbook - A workbook for winners'.

The book is great but I noticed some strange thinking.

He starts debating and discussing the play of small pocket pairs (below 88) out of position (EP to MP) in full ring games, finally coming to the conclusion that your win rate probably wouldn't be too damaged if you just folded them PF.

I have no problem with this advice per se, but he bases his conclusion on what he calls an event parlay which he deems to be unlikely. I happen to agree with him that the parlay is unlikely, but it looks like he makes some mistakes in his logic.

It has been my understanding that the play of hands should factor everything that you know now, and ignore past mistakes (in so far as pot odds calculations go). It seems like he is suggesting otherwise.

On pages 130-131 he outlines the following scenario:

You call in EP with 44 , it gets raised in MP, 4 people call the raise, the small blind folds, and it's one bet back to you.

You are now getting 11-1 and have a clear call. This is obvious to most of us here. (To those who don't know yet, you are 7.5-1 to flop a set)

Suddenly, though, he contradicts himself in the next paragraph, saying that now you have to put in 2 bets PF making your actual investment 5-1 instead of 11-1.

I don't see how this can be right.

If you thought it would get raised initially, then you should fold it. If you were wrong, and it did get raised anyway, then you still have a clear call given all the action so far.

-------------------------

But wait, there's more....

Now he's actually saying that even if you flop the set, you should still be afraid. This completely confused me.

Page 132:

Same situation 44 in EP, Raise from MP with 6 callers. Flop comes Q84 rainbow.

We bet the flop and no one raises. This and the PF action is telling us that no one has a set. (These reads are assumed to be correct.)

Now suddenly, the fear hits.

1. We sure hope no one has a JT (looking for a 9) (Why not? It's a 4 Outer!)
2. We sure hope no one has Q8 (4 outs)
3. We sure hope on one has 55 (2 outs!)

I don't see the difference with this hand if he would have made your hand AA and the flop come AQ8 rainbow.

Why would he want action from those hands then? (obviously, we would destroy the Q8 if it fills up here)

I'm confused...

Or not [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Dov

[soah]

Basically what he is saying is that lots of things can go wrong. You may have to pay too many bets to see the flop, and you will still lose a number of pots in which you have flopped a set.

On the flop, your opponents may not be getting the right price to draw at their two or four outers, but it relates to preflop... you may be 7.5:1 to flop a set, but that does not mean you are 7.5:1 to win the pot. This is important if you are relying on your implied odds postflop to make up for taking the worst of it preflop.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

On pages 130-131 he outlines the following scenario:

You call in EP with 44 , it gets raised in MP, 4 people call the raise, the small blind folds, and it's one bet back to you.

You are now getting 11-1 and have a clear call. This is obvious to most of us here. (To those who don't know yet, you are 7.5-1 to flop a set)

Suddenly, though, he contradicts himself in the next paragraph, saying that now you have to put in 2 bets PF making your actual investment 5-1 instead of 11-1.

I don't see how this can be right.

If you thought it would get raised initially, then you should fold it. If you were wrong, and it did get raised anyway, then you still have a clear call given all the action so far.


[/ QUOTE ]

On your 2nd action, you ARE getting 11-1 on your call. The money you put in earlier is in the pot, not yours, making this call correct. However, looking at the pre-flop action as a whole, you did put in 2 small bets, making the effective odds on the whole street 5-1. Your pre-flop mistake of limping in EP with 44 forces you to pay another bet (even though it's right). It's not a contradiction, but rather a difference in point of view. The fact of the matter is that you put in 2 bets with 44 out of position pre-flop.

[ QUOTE ]

-------------------------

But wait, there's more....

Now he's actually saying that even if you flop the set, you should still be afraid. This completely confused me.

Page 132:

Same situation 44 in EP, Raise from MP with 6 callers. Flop comes Q84 rainbow.

We bet the flop and no one raises. This and the PF action is telling us that no one has a set. (These reads are assumed to be correct.)

Now suddenly, the fear hits.

1. We sure hope no one has a JT (looking for a 9) (Why not? It's a 4 Outer!)
2. We sure hope no one has Q8 (4 outs)
3. We sure hope no one has 55 (2 outs!)

I don't see the difference with this hand if he would have made your hand AA and the flop come AQ8 rainbow.



[/ QUOTE ]

Q8 and 55 have only runner-runner outs against you in this case. JT will be coming along anyways with their 4 outs.
I'm not quite sure why he doesn't want action from those hands though, but it does eat at your equity slightly.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
You call in EP with 44 , it gets raised in MP, 4 people call the raise, the small blind folds, and it's one bet back to you.

You are now getting 11-1 and have a clear call. This is obvious to most of us here. (To those who don't know yet, you are 7.5-1 to flop a set)

Suddenly, though, he contradicts himself in the next paragraph, saying that now you have to put in 2 bets PF making your actual investment 5-1 instead of 11-1.

I don't see how this can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's right. Obviously you are not going to fold for one more bet.... but when you look at Pre-flop as a whole you made a "mistake." I put mistake in quotes because you should be able to easily make up the 5 BBs to make this a profitable call. Do you see why it's 5 and not 2.5?

Anyway, the same thing applies when you peel to see the turn for one bet when you are not closing the action and someone raises behind you. Clearly you are not folding for one more back around... but when you look at the street as a whole you made a mistake since it cost you twice as much.

[Louie Landale]

Years ago Vorhouse wrote well written but terrible advise columns. Then he quit with a column admitting he'd been bluffing those years and really didn't know squat about poker. That seemed to be true. Haven't read him since. Now maybe he's learned something since then. Anyhow...

If you call and its raised the 2nd call is a no brainer. But you need to take into account the threat of the raise before making the first call. If you figure it will get 2-bet half the time (which you will call) and 3-bet 10% of the time (which you will fold), then the true cost of the first call is .5*2+.4*1+.1*1 = 1.5bets, with only a 90% chance to see the flop. (Which I suppose makes the cost equivalent to 1.67 bets. That's a fair number to start.

But Wait!! I see it in the NL games now: folks take long odds with their small pairs to flop a set, but then over-raise the flop to drive everyone out. Its as if they don't want to get called when they have a set. I think the bone-head has to realize that he's a huge favorite with a set even when called. Yup the opponent may have a whopping 4outs (a 11:1 underdog) but he can also have top pair and is drawing dead.

You want to get called when you've got a set.

- Louie

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
You want to get called when you've got a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought.

Thanks. Good Post.

[senjitsu]

Although I think he could have made the point better, I think the basic point of the whole discussion of low pairs out of position was "Generally, its bad to put yourself in a situation where everything has to go exactly right for you to make money."

I think his point about getting called by Q8 and TJ was more along the lines of even when you do hit a set and get paid off, there's still things that can go wrong -- i.e. a hand like bottom set is strong, but still fundamentally vulnerable (i think he could have used a better illustration than he did)

Regarding your odds to flop a set -- yeah, you're getting 11-1 odds when the raise comes back around to you, so its a clear call -- but taken as a single decision, you are not getting proper odds on your small set.

To put it another way, say your choices were:
A. Call the raise.
B. Fold to the raise.
C. Take the delorean back in time and prevent yourself entering the pot.

Choice C would have the highest expectation as a whole (it would be zero... , choices A and B would both yield a negative expectation though B would be more negative).



[ QUOTE ]
I know that this post revolves around a book, but the concept is theory, so I put it here.

John wrote a 2nd companion book to his original 'Killer Poker' called 'Killer Poker Holdem Hanbook - A workbook for winners'.

The book is great but I noticed some strange thinking.

He starts debating and discussing the play of small pocket pairs (below 88) out of position (EP to MP) in full ring games, finally coming to the conclusion that your win rate probably wouldn't be too damaged if you just folded them PF.

I have no problem with this advice per se, but he bases his conclusion on what he calls an event parlay which he deems to be unlikely. I happen to agree with him that the parlay is unlikely, but it looks like he makes some mistakes in his logic.

It has been my understanding that the play of hands should factor everything that you know now, and ignore past mistakes (in so far as pot odds calculations go). It seems like he is suggesting otherwise.

On pages 130-131 he outlines the following scenario:

You call in EP with 44 , it gets raised in MP, 4 people call the raise, the small blind folds, and it's one bet back to you.

You are now getting 11-1 and have a clear call. This is obvious to most of us here. (To those who don't know yet, you are 7.5-1 to flop a set)

Suddenly, though, he contradicts himself in the next paragraph, saying that now you have to put in 2 bets PF making your actual investment 5-1 instead of 11-1.

I don't see how this can be right.

If you thought it would get raised initially, then you should fold it. If you were wrong, and it did get raised anyway, then you still have a clear call given all the action so far.

-------------------------

But wait, there's more....

Now he's actually saying that even if you flop the set, you should still be afraid. This completely confused me.

Page 132:

Same situation 44 in EP, Raise from MP with 6 callers. Flop comes Q84 rainbow.

We bet the flop and no one raises. This and the PF action is telling us that no one has a set. (These reads are assumed to be correct.)

Now suddenly, the fear hits.

1. We sure hope no one has a JT (looking for a 9) (Why not? It's a 4 Outer!)
2. We sure hope no one has Q8 (4 outs)
3. We sure hope on one has 55 (2 outs!)

I don't see the difference with this hand if he would have made your hand AA and the flop come AQ8 rainbow.

Why would he want action from those hands then? (obviously, we would destroy the Q8 if it fills up here)

I'm confused...

Or not [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Dov

[/ QUOTE ]

[s2black9s]

[ QUOTE ]


Same situation 44 in EP, Raise from MP with 6 callers. Flop comes Q84 rainbow.

We bet the flop and no one raises. This and the PF action is telling us that no one has a set. (These reads are assumed to be correct.)

Now suddenly, the fear hits.

1. We sure hope no one has a JT (looking for a 9) (Why not? It's a 4 Outer!)
2. We sure hope no one has Q8 (4 outs)
3. We sure hope on one has 55 (2 outs!)

I don't see the difference with this hand if he would have made your hand AA and the flop come AQ8 rainbow.

Why would he want action from those hands then? (obviously, we would destroy the Q8 if it fills up here)

I'm confused...

Or not [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Dov

[/ QUOTE ]

difference of having AA with a AQ8 flop from a 44 with a Q84 flop.

the straight draw is still alive(J10)still has two outs.
However, Q8 has no outs and is now drawing to two running 8s or 2running Qs.
Also, 55 or any pocket pair for that matter is also drawing to 2 running cards for quads which is close to drawing dead.

AA is so much stronger as you can see.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
difference of having AA with a AQ8 flop from a 44 with a Q84 flop.

the straight draw is still alive(J10)still has two outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is from 2 dimes: (constructed so that suits don't matter)

AA Vs JT on Q84 rainbow

As Ah 734 74.14 256 25.86 0 0.00 0.741
Ts Jh 256 25.86 734 74.14 0 0.00 0.259


44 VS JT on AQ4 rainbow

4s 4h 838 84.65 152 15.35 0 0.00 0.846
Ts Jh 152 15.35 838 84.65 0 0.00 0.154

[ QUOTE ]
AA is so much stronger as you can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this at all. As a matter of fact, I see the set of fours as stronger here.

It catches up here:

AA VS 55 on AQ4 rainbow

As Ah 989 99.90 1 0.10 0 0.00 0.999
5s 5h 1 0.10 989 99.90 0 0.00 0.001


44 VS 55 on Q84 rainbow

4s 4h 883 89.19 107 10.81 0 0.00 0.892
5s 5h 107 10.81 883 89.19 0 0.00 0.108

But the fours are still a monster favorite to win.

I understand now that the point was to take a street by street analysis, and not a bet by bet analysis.

However, having flopped a set of fours, I think I like my hand quite a bit and will be getting a lot of money in this pot. (I hope)

[Rezman5]

[ QUOTE ]

AA Vs JT on Q84 rainbow
44 VS JT on AQ4 rainbow

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mixed up the flops here. That is why the 44 is coming out stronger, because the AA didn't set where as the 44 did. Try re-evaluating and see how much stronger the AA hand becomes.