|
|
#1
03-02-2005, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
World Class Player - Paul P\'s Post re: Razz
can anyone justify this razz claim? Randomly selected toilet reading of the moment is "poker essays" by malmuth. Excerpt from "A World-Class Play", about a supposedly amazing razz play from "an extremely strong player" called Player A. Player A opened the pot for $30 with (A2)3. He was called by Player B, who had a 7 up, and everyone else folded. On fourth street, Player B caught an 8 while Player A caught a J. Player B bet and Player A called. What's unusual about the play is that against most opponents, Player A would have thrown his hand away. But against B, who plays well, he called. Why would he do this? [Emphasis mine] Whoa man! Nobody can play razz that badly. Mason is implying here that the "correct" play is to fold and that the expert is brilliantly deviating from correct play in this specific circumstance because of opponent-specific data. In fact, if you fold A23J on 4th street against ANYONE with an 87 up when you're getting better than 3-1 on the call you are a razz fish. We'll ignore possible extenuating circumstances like the dead cards or a tournament chip situation, because they weren't part of his argument. Was he high when he wrote that or what? Later in the essay he says: This is an example of how the best players are able to win much more than tight players. I agree if by "tight" he means "ludicrously overtight." It almost sounds like a fantasy invented by an overtight player trying to convince himself there are even tighter "world-class" players out there. Who folds this? It's sick. http://extempore.livejournal.com/ 
|
|
#4
03-02-2005, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: World Class Player - Paul P\'s Post re: Razz
Hmmm...I think Slansky also recommends laying it down when you brick on 4th and your opponent catches good. He also says you may muster a call if you have a monster hand such as A23 but that is just info taken from the book. What are the odds that you catch good and your opponent catch bad on 5th? I would like to know that.
|
|
#6
03-02-2005, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: World Class Player - Paul P\'s Post re: Razz
[ QUOTE ]
No, it can't. Someone posted results from twodimes assuming the (xx)87 had the best possible hand, 8754. J321 was a 2-1 dog in that case. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I thought. 3:1 just seemed way off. Aside: Why isn't 8721 the best possible hand for 87 up?
|
|
#7
03-02-2005, 11:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: World Class Player - Paul P\'s Post re: Razz
[ QUOTE ]
No, it can't. Someone posted results from twodimes assuming the (xx)87 had the best possible hand, 8754. J321 was a 2-1 dog in that case. [/ QUOTE ] Without knowing the dead cards we are just speculating.
|
|
#8
03-02-2005, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: World Class Player - Paul P\'s Post re: Razz
[ QUOTE ]
Aside: Why isn't 8721 the best possible hand for 87 up? [/ QUOTE ] because now J has live 4 and 5 outs
|
|
#9
03-02-2005, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: World Class Player - Paul P\'s Post re: Razz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No, it can't. Someone posted results from twodimes assuming the (xx)87 had the best possible hand, 8754. J321 was a 2-1 dog in that case. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I thought. 3:1 just seemed way off. Aside: Why isn't 8721 the best possible hand for 87 up? [/ QUOTE ] Because the 54 in the 87xx hand makes them dead for the A23 hand (instead of having 18 cards 4-8 that help A23, there are only 16 left).
|
|
#10
03-02-2005, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: World Class Player - Paul P\'s Post re: Razz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No, it can't. Someone posted results from twodimes assuming the (xx)87 had the best possible hand, 8754. J321 was a 2-1 dog in that case. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I thought. 3:1 just seemed way off. Aside: Why isn't 8721 the best possible hand for 87 up? [/ QUOTE ] Because the 54 in the 87xx hand makes them dead for the A23 hand (instead of having 18 cards 4-8 that help A23, there are only 16 left). [/ QUOTE ] I thought it was something like that. Thanks.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
