a DERB hand - Page 5

DcifrThs · #41 11-20-2005, 09:21 PM

dude, this hand is like a train wreck w/o complete knowledge on the flop. wtf is that? what hands does he check with after 3 betting preflop?

that right there has to be exploitable in some way. how often does he fold after checking the flop after 3betting pf from the sb?

-Barron

tongni · #42 11-20-2005, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting that many people think DERB will DEFINITELY call a raise, while at least one person believes he is probably going to fold to a raise.

This is exactly the kind of confusion a mixed strategy would cause in a field of players who believe there must be one right answer. To take this further, based on the number of players who think he'll call and the size of the pot, I'll guess that DERB's mixed strategy here about coincides with the size of the pot, ie, he's handling a raise with the triple:

{10, 90, 0}

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

This post makes me want to kill myself. The content is alright, but why do we have to come up with stupider and stupider ways to describe "call 10% of the time and fold 90% of the time", or whatever you are trying to describe here. I forgot what position means what, so this might as well be "checkraise 90% of the time 3bet 10% of the time.

Can we please stop making it so much more complex than it really is? Enough of this regression analysis, crazy graphs and multivariable calclus to show that calling the river with AK on a 8553J board is a mistake of .01 BB, and the phrase "If we run it through twodimes against his range of hands. ." I don't even remember what regression analysis means anymore. Can we just say stuff like "I'd probably fold here but I might look him up once in a while." or do we need little brackets and commas to prove that we are winning players? If so:

{{{}}{}{{}}{{}{{{{{{}{}{}{{ , , , , , , , 10, 41, 0{{{{{{{[{{

In summary: If he's bluffing, call. If not I would probably lay it down.

Lestat · #43 11-20-2005, 09:39 PM

elindauer-

You're too good to make fun of. But isn't what you're talking about nothing more than game theory?

Noo Yawk · #44 11-20-2005, 09:40 PM

I don't see the brillance in representing a straight on the river. He got lucky and got called by a pair of 2's. He could have gotten unlucky and been called by 5's. If he was trying to get a better hand to fold he picked the wrong opponent.

I think you guys are overthinking DERB.

newhizzle · #45 11-20-2005, 09:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the brillance in representing a straight on the river. He got lucky and got called by a pair of 2's. He could have gotten unlucky and been called by 5's. If he was trying to get a better hand to fold he picked the wrong opponent.

I think you guys are overthinking DERB.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think he was necessarily trying to represent the straight, this is a standard value bet in my oppinion

he is going to be good more often when he is called than when he checks and his opponent bets and his opponent will check behind a lot of hands that would call a bet

newhizzle · #46 11-20-2005, 11:26 PM

heres a fun one, this just happened:

DERB is BB

Party Poker 50.00/100.00 Hold'em (10 handed) link

Preflop: Hero is Button with J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
2 folds, MP1 raises, 2 folds, CO calls, Hero calls, 1 folds, DERB calls.

Flop: (8.50 SB) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (4 players)
DERB bets, MP1 folds, CO folds, Hero raises, DERB 3-bets, Hero caps, DERB calls.

Turn: (8.25 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
DERB bets, Hero raises, DERB 3-bets, Hero caps, DERB calls.

River: (16.25 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
DERB checks, Hero bets, DERB folds.

Final Pot: 17.25 BB.

any thoughts on what he might have had?

wheelz · #47 11-20-2005, 11:54 PM

J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]x[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] where x != a card on the board

elindauer · #48 11-21-2005, 03:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
elindauer-

You're too good to make fun of. But isn't what you're talking about nothing more than game theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it Lestat. That's exactly it. Straight out of Theory of Poker. I think we need to approach a lot more of these situations by first finding the game theory solution, or something close to it, and then adjusting from there.

I think many cases where we end up kind of stumped are simple the ones where we don't know enough about the opponent to make a decision, so we don't make any. Instead, we should answer those posts with a game theory solution.

I suspect that doing this would open a whole new world of metagame discussion that we are only now just barely acknowledging.

On a personal note, these last fews days I've been thinking a lot about some of the heads up lines I take and how they might be improved by employing a few mixed strategies. Where would these strategies be appropriate? How would my opponents react to them? I've been on a wild ride of discovery, and that's just what I can come up with on my own. I can only imagine the breakthroughs we'd get if everybody collaborated on this stuff.

-Eric

Lestat · #49 11-21-2005, 09:59 AM

You make some great points. The only thing I would add is, let's not forget game theory is best applied against opponents who are equally matched in playing skills.

I believe Sklansky uses the example of the childhood game rock,paper,scissors. It's possible for your opponent to have (or develop) tendencies or patterns which are exploitable. Now, you do better to simply continue exploiting these tendencies rather than resorting to any kind of game theory. It's only when your opponent starts making decisions as well as you (thereby taking away your edge), that game theory becomes necessary.

So against "unkown" opponents (particularly online), I often err on the side of paying off to learn what his tendencies are and see if he is exploitable. I find that most players fall into 2 catagories. a). They play poorly, or b). They multi-table and resort to patternistic tendencies. It is rare I find someone good enough to where I need to resort to game theory.

But again, your point is well taken. These tougher players do exist (many of them post on here), and game theory should not be overlooked.

Chris Callahan · #50 11-21-2005, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i can't imagine that he would call a river raise... but who knows. Part of the reason why he makes those crazy calls on the end has got to be to prevent people from bluffing at him in a situation like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so too. The solid approach if you are going to make thin value bets like this is to fold to a raise with the bottom end of your betting range. A4 is probably at the bottom, so if DERB has some brains he will likely fold that hand.

This means DERB (correctly) will pay off a raise most of the time (e.g. with A8), but not always. Maybe those who are saying DERB always calls here are confusing "always" with "most of the time"?