Faulty Analysis in Hellmuth Cardplayer Column

[slickpoppa]

Ok, so read this article by Hellmuth in Cardplayer:
link

Basically, it describes a 3 way hand in which Carlos Mortensen calls 2 all-ins with about 1/3 of his stack with KQo. After the hand, Annie Duke questioned the call because of the chance that Carlos would be dominated. The part of the artice that is wrong is:

"While Annie’s point is excellent, so was Carlos’ point when he asked me about the hand at the 10-minute break. With $359,000 ($6,000 + $25,000 + $174,000 + $154,000) in the pot and Carlos having to call only $149,000 more, the pot was laying him 2.4-to-1. If he was looking at A-K, Q-Q, or A-Q, he would be only a 2.5-to-1 underdog, and based on that assessment, his call was OK."

First of all if Carlos were heads up against AK or AQ he would be a 3:1 dog. But even more importantly, he is not heads up. In a three way pot, if one player had AK and the other guy had a small pair like 9-9, Carlos' equity in the pot would only be about 20%, in which case he would need 4:1 odds to call, and his call is atrocious. If Carlos were against two smaller pairs his call would have been correct, but Phil clearly states that his call is almost correct even if he is dominated by one of the hands.

In fairness tp Phil, if he deserves that, the overall point of the article was not bad.

[Atropos]

I would always question math numbers which are brought up by Phil Hellmuth. I mean he once lost a bet because he thought AKo is better than AKs because you can make two flushes with it....

[emil3000]

For real? Now that makes you wonder. He must be a real good reader of people then, to ever get successful. I've always wondered about the lack of math in his book, but assumed it was because he doesn't think it's too important (not that that is intelligent). Does he have no understanding of it whatsoever?

[drewjustdrew]

Are you sure that was his argument? That is pretty weak. I would be inclined to think he made that argument because he wouldn't get tied to unprofitable flush draws with the unsuited cards.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
For real? Now that makes you wonder. He must be a real good reader of people then, to ever get successful. I've always wondered about the lack of math in his book, but assumed it was because he doesn't think it's too important (not that that is intelligent). Does he have no understanding of it whatsoever?

[/ QUOTE ]

I recall on the 4th series of late night poker in the UK, that he offered to make a bet that his Q2o was no more than about 8-1 dog against QQ. Maybe it's for image purposes, as it seems a consistent theme of his, and I would consider it dumb for any pro tourney player not to know allin odds. There's no excuse.

The thing that really got me was the commentator told the audience that Phil would be correct as he'd know the odds to the nearest decimal point. Bit of an insult to the other pro players and most of the table that disagreed with him.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure that was his argument? That is pretty weak. I would be inclined to think he made that argument because he wouldn't get tied to unprofitable flush draws with the unsuited cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil wrote about losing a bet, and being surprised that AKs was a favourite over AKo in an allin showdown. He wrote that up to that point he thought the AKo would be favourite as it would make more flushes. Hard to believe someone with his ego would publicise that unless it was for image purposes.

[Daliman]

Aks vs Ako is a 3.5-1 favorite is hands with a result other than a split, BTW. I think it spilts around 91% of the time.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Faulty Analysis in Hellmuth Cardplayer Column

[/ QUOTE ]


And 2+2=4, North Dakota is north of South Dakota, and the sun rose in the morning and later set in the evening.

[Easy E]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bobaloo23]

AK and 99 against Carlos' hand, Carlos wins 25% of the time. Not exactly 4-1.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so read this article by Hellmuth in Cardplayer:
link


First of all if Carlos were heads up against AK or AQ he would be a 3:1 dog. But even more importantly, he is not heads up. In a three way pot, if one player had AK and the other guy had a small pair like 9-9, Carlos' equity in the pot would only be about 20%, in which case he would need 4:1 odds to call, and his call is atrocious. If Carlos were against two smaller pairs his call would have been correct, but Phil clearly states that his call is almost correct even if he is dominated by one of the hands.

In fairness tp Phil, if he deserves that, the overall point of the article was not bad.

[/ QUOTE ]