You guys might find this thread interesting...

[Ed Miller]

Randy,

TheDude is right. He is saying that you cannot evaluate the "Raising vs. Calling" mistake (from UTG) in quite the same way that you evaluate the "Calling vs. Folding" mistake.

For the "Calling vs. Folding" mistake you CANNOT lose (on average) more than the cost of the call due to that error alone. It's mathematically impossible to have an expectation lower than the price of the call.

In the "Raising vs. Calling" mistake, it's very unlikely to have an expectation differece between raising and calling bigger than the size of the raise... but it is POSSIBLE. Calling could be wildly profitable, and raising could chase out everyone who would have given you action if you had just called. So calling might possibly be +$3 and raising +$0.

Now in reality, that's simply not the way poker works. If calling is worth $1, then raising will almost certainly not be worth less than -$1 (again, in our $2-$4 game). But I asserted that it is a certainty when it isn't.

Now what is true is that raising can be no worse than two bets of expectation worse than folding. So if you KNOW that calling is break-even, then you can set a hard limit on the size of the raising error at -$4.

[Randy Burgess]

Somebody slap me till I'm awake. I COMPLETELY misread his post.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]
So there are five loose limpers and you have ATs on the button. Against six random hands (assume the big blind comes along), ATs wins 23.5% of the time (from gocee.com). Your "share" is 1/7 or 14.3%. Thus, ATs wins approximately 23.5 - 14.3 = 9.2% "more than its share." Raising nets you 9.2% of all the post-raise action (in this case, one bet for each player, or seven bets), so failing to raise costs you about 0.092*7 = 0.644 bets or about $1.30 in our $2-$4 game. Now that's obviously just an estimate... real poker isn't played hot and cold. But that $1.30 number is WAY bigger than the numbers we got for the other errors, so we can conclude that failing to raise ATs in that spot is almost certainly a bigger error than the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your estimates are off by quite a bit here.

1st, you assume using random hands will be close enough, well I checked out my old pokertracker hands from 2-4 to get an idea of what hands we could safely eliminate these hands were 72o 84o KK AK etc. I then ran a simulation(5M hands) ATs vs random hands not including these hands and ATs only won 18% of the time and tied 3.4% (against all random hands I got 22.2% wins and 2.8% ties), so the actually % is closer to 19.7% not 23.5%

2nd, there is a 35% chance there will be a flop that you will not continue with so what % of the time you fold would you have actually won the hand? running simulations I got a rough estimate of 3% so 3% x 35% = 1% of your wins will happen when your hand is mucked. We are now down to 18.7%

3rd, Why are you including your bet when you calculate the value of the raise? I think it should've been 9.2% x 6 opponents

4th, there is that small possibility one of the early limpers has a monster and reraises, its insignificant so I wont include it.

Anyway the actual amount you are losing by not raising in this situation is closer to 18.7% - 14.3% = 4.4%x6 = .264x2 = .528
.528 is quite a ways from 1.30 doesnt seem very important but if you made a mistake like this where the actual value is -.2 and you claim +.572 that would cost a few players a few cents.

On top of all this you lose post flop because your ability to outplay your opponents is lost, its now difficult for a calling station to make a mistake. You also make it really difficult on yourself what if the flop comes 3h4hTc you have AsTs and someone bets a few callers do you call? raise? fold? turn is a Kc how do you continue?

Whats the optimal way to play a game where every hand is capped and every player sees every flop? Is it to play every hand you win your fair share with?

Im sure theres just a very small peice about this in your book if anything at all since its a situation you wont see too often, but I have a feeling your book will have quite a few flaws, this is lees oportunity I hope you 2 can debate some of these topics without it turning into this http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...art=1&vc=1

That said im looking forward to reading your book Ive never read a book specifically for small stakes/loose games before.

[Ed Miller]

1st, you assume using random hands will be close enough, well I checked out my old pokertracker hands from 2-4 to get an idea of what hands we could safely eliminate these hands were 72o 84o KK AK etc. I then ran a simulation(5M hands) ATs vs random hands not including these hands and ATs only won 18% of the time and tied 3.4% (against all random hands I got 22.2% wins and 2.8% ties), so the actually % is closer to 19.7% not 23.5%

I'm surprised the difference is so large, but I won't argue it since you are in a better position to get this number than I am.

2nd, there is a 35% chance there will be a flop that you will not continue with so what % of the time you fold would you have actually won the hand? running simulations I got a rough estimate of 3% so 3% x 35% = 1% of your wins will happen when your hand is mucked. We are now down to 18.7%

This adjustment you can't make, however. That's because it will be correct for your opponents to fold as often (or more often) than you. Cutting the winning percentage of ATs without cutting that for your opponents makes your situation appear worse than it is.

Your opponents won't fold when they should, you say? Well, that is, of course, to your benefit, not detriment.

3rd, Why are you including your bet when you calculate the value of the raise? I think it should've been 9.2% x 6 opponents

The 7 is correct. I address this question in the original thread as well. If you prefer it this way, calculate EV = 0.197 * 7 - 1.

4th, there is that small possibility one of the early limpers has a monster and reraises, its insignificant so I wont include it.

Good. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So using your 19.7% number, we now get a $0.76 error. Failing to raise ATs is still clearly a bigger error than all three "call when you should fold" errors, but it is now closer to the folding AQ error.

.528 is quite a ways from 1.30 doesnt seem very important but if you made a mistake like this where the actual value is -.2 and you claim +.572 that would cost a few players a few cents.

By my own admission, I was making a very rough estimate. I wouldn't use this method of estimating if my margin of error were smaller.

Im sure theres just a very small peice about this in your book if anything at all since its a situation you wont see too often, but I have a feeling your book will have quite a few flaws...

If you find a flaw, please feel free to let me know.

[Ed Miller]

There certainly is an adjustment term for the way your preflop raise affects your postflop EV. But I do not accept your 3% term at all, for several reasons:

1. There is no way that I trust you to simulate how often you'd fold. That makes suppositions about how the hand will play, and you can't simulate those accurately at all.

2. You cannot simulate how the larger pot size will cause your opponents to change the way they will play.

So I'm not saying that SOMETHING doesn't belong where your 3% term went, but I think it's as likely to be 3% as it is to be 0%.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]
This adjustment you can't make, however. That's because it will be correct for your opponents to fold as often (or more often) than you. Cutting the winning percentage of ATs without cutting that for your opponents makes your situation appear worse than it is.


[/ QUOTE ]
You can assume that the audience of your book will make more folds post flop then the fish who limps in with any random hand. you would fold ATs on a 5h5Jh board the fish wont and based on the random hands your opponents could have there is about a 2-4% chance that hand will win when all the cards are out. Bringing it down 1% seems reasonable 0% doesnt
[ QUOTE ]

Your opponents won't fold when they should, you say? Well, that is, of course, to your benefit, not detriment.


[/ QUOTE ]
They wont fold whether you raise preflop or not so when you hit they'll pay you off no matter what you did preflop.

I was being generous with my numbers the error is definately not 1.3 or .76 Cant say exactly what it would be, but its definately under .6

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
This adjustment you can't make, however. That's because it will be correct for your opponents to fold as often (or more often) than you. Cutting the winning percentage of ATs without cutting that for your opponents makes your situation appear worse than it is.

Your opponents won't fold when they should, you say? Well, that is, of course, to your benefit, not detriment.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I understand your point, I don't agree.

Imagine that your opponents never fold postflop while you fold whenever it seems correct. That greatly reduces the probability of winning with (say) ATs and can easily make the preflop raise negative EV. Of course you are getting rich on the postflop play but that could have been achieved by just calling.

Good players may not win their hot-and-cold fair share postflop in a large loose field precisely because they have the good sense to fold. This is an adjustment that needs to be considered when evaluating preflop raises of many limpers. Not easily done of course.

[Ed Miller]

If I understand your point, I don't agree.

Imagine that your opponents never fold postflop while you fold whenever it seems correct. That greatly reduces the probability of winning with (say) ATs and can easily make the preflop raise negative EV. Of course you are getting rich on the postflop play but that could have been achieved by just calling.

That's not quite what I'm saying. Of course you are correct... but assuming that your opponents never fold, while you fold every time it is "correct" to do so is a silly assumption. That's just not the way poker is played. You can't introduce a "folding factor" and subtract it from your hot-and-cold winrate without thinking about how often other people will fold when they would have won.

Furthermore, you are ignoring two other postflop effects:

1. With a hand like ATs, it's significantly more likely that your opponents should fold than you should. So even if your opponents play loosely postflop, they might be folding more than you simply because their hands are that much weaker than yours.

2. The size of the pot changes the frequency that your opponents will fold. Believe it or not, many player will fold in an unraised pot, but not in a raised pot.

My objection is that this Flawed guy basically took the worst-case scenario (well, maybe not the worst, but he picked out anti-raising factors and ignored some pro-raising factors), plugged them into a "simulation" (god knows what went on under the covers of that), and told me that I was wrong.

If you are going to run simulations and achieve results from them, I think you have an obligation to make some estimate as to the ERROR of your simulation. Error can come from several places:

1. The estimates that you used when you developed the sim. For example, Flawed says that he "looked at PokerTracker" and decided what hands people limped with and what they didn't limp with. That adjudication is a source of error.

2. Errors in the simulation software itself. If you are running hot-and-cold simulations, then if you coded them correctly, you should have no errors of this sort. But if you are running simulations where people bet, raise, and fold (i.e., TTH), then you get errors here... potentially very large errors if you aren't extremely careful.

3. Factors that you ignored. If you consider how often you have to fold, but you assume that your opponents never fold... well, that introduces a systematic error into your result.

These errors can REALLY add up to a sim. In fact, I bet that most people who run sims (I don't know anything about Flawed, so I can't say this about him one way or the other) get results that are essentially meaningless. They don't understand poker well enough OR their software well enough to reduce and adjust for the errors. They just set something up, tell it to run a million hands, and read off the results as if they are gospel.

If you are going to run sims and get real results that you are going to argue about, you have an obligation to estimate the error of your results.

[The Dude]

Ed, as an interesting aside, I played in a live 3-6 game the other day where it was very possible that raising 22 UTG was correct! It was borderline, but the game was juicy, to say the least.

What I mean to say is, it is usually only a small mistake to raise w/ 22 UTG in most 2-4 games.

[Saborion]

The win % of Gocee includes the split pots.

"Each entry in the following table is the result of 1,000,000 simulated hands of hold 'em played to the showdown and represents the percentage of pots won (including partial pots in the case of splits) by the indicated hand against the indicated number of opponents holding random hands."

How should that affect the way we use those numbers when calculating pre-flop differences? Lowering the win % with a certain percentage? I doubt we should lower it to the exact amount, since being the pre-flop aggressor sometimes might make a split hand fold. Although I doubt it would be a correct fold given the pot size and stuff like that.