"A Pair of Fours" Again

[Clarkmeister]

Oh man. Mike l in town right on the heels of skp and soon to be followed by JASucker and Ulysses.

I better run well the last two weeks of the year here, my bankroll will need it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[astroglide]

you know the porn/ces awards start on the weekend, right?

www.avn.com

[J_V]

I don't buy that his has any value than the one bet it picks up. I'd attribute his play to random betting, no skill involved. And if he told me he value bet it cause he knew I would call with Ace high and would call. I would tell him to talk to my World Series bracelet. Oh wait, I don't have one, but that reminds me...I need to pick one up this year for these occassions. I hear 2-7 triple draw only gets 30 entries. How hard could it be?

95% of the time this bet is made, it will be made by a player worse than me, so what do I care? Even if you felt, wow he really owned me there...so what? Is it gonna make me play worse - probably not significantly.

I don't think it's particularly a good value bet either.

Am I right? Who knows, it's sort've like the SAT, you take the test and they give you the score later. But, they don't tell you which ones you got wrong. You just get a letter in the mail or a pile of bills at the end of the year and compare them to your friends to see how you did.

Unfortunately, if you are looking for truth in poker, your pile of bills doesn't matter much either, since how good players fare monetarily is mainly dependent on decisions not made at the actual table. For some reasons, these facts have hugely soured me from the theoretical aspects of poker. I used to pine over all my decisions worry about a mistake here or there, now I just play six games online and try to get laid and I seem to be doing ok in at least one category. For more stream of consciousness check out Faulkner or Joyce, I'm not sure which one, but one of them has a famous stream of consciousness book I hear but I never read it.

[mike l.]

"I better run well the last two weeks of the year here, my bankroll will need it."

youll be running well as soon as i sit down in your game. that is, if youre playing 4-8 that week. or 60-120. ill let you know which when i get there. i should know for sure by then.

damn what time do you fly out skp? i cant imagine many things neater than meeting the amazing skp in person! maybe i could drive you to the airport or something?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy that his has any value than the one bet it picks up.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'cause you're much better than most opponents we all face.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear 2-7 triple draw only gets 30 entries. How hard could it be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good idea. I'm in.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you felt, wow he really owned me there...so what? Is it gonna make me play worse - probably not significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'cause you're much better than most opponents we all face.

[ QUOTE ]
since how good players fare monetarily is mainly dependent on decisions not made at the actual table. For some reasons, these facts have hugely soured me from the theoretical aspects of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good point. And even at the table, 15-30 minutes of semi-tilt is probably a bigger factor than every thin game theoretic value bet you might find in a given week.

[ QUOTE ]
now I just play six games online and try to get laid and I seem to be doing ok in at least one category.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds like a great plan.

[ QUOTE ]
For more stream of consciousness check out Faulkner or Joyce, I'm not sure which one, but one of them has a famous stream of consciousness book I hear but I never read it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you're thinking of Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury. Good stuff.

[anunkind]

stream of consiousness = james joyce

"portrait of the artist as a young man" best exemplefies it, although haven't read "ulysses."


-anunkind

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Every now and then I need to remind myself that I am supposed to lose 40-45% of the time they call my bet in this situation (last to act after your lone opponent has checked the river), otherwise I am leaving some money on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Coilean:

This is a good point. If you're winning a high percentage of your value bets, it means you're not value betting enough.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Clark:

You do understand that if first to act in a very big pot I should bet more hands than if last to act in the same pot. This has something to do with not wanting to give my opponent a chance to bluff after I check since I won't call with the best hand a small percentage of the time. But when it's checked to me, he has relinquished his opportunity to bluff. See the essay "Betting and Game Theory" in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. (By the way, in small pots you should bet less often when first to act than when last to act and it has been checked to you.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Depraved:

I don't remember this hand being in the Carson book. It's been a while since I read it. However, there is another hand in the Carson book that I played which he claims was played terribly. Of course, he changed a few things about the hand to make it looked like it was played poorly. So what else is new?

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Redwing:

With time the perspective on this hand has changed. When I first posted it, I did so because of the fourth street bet. However, the big argument was not over the turn, but over the flop call. Now from these posts, it seems like the flop and the turn are pretty much agreed upon, but the river check is in question.

Best wishes,
Mason