My Cardplayer Column

[David Sklansky]

It's very important but not that easy to understand. Please feel free to ask here for further explanation if you are having trouble with it.

[rigoletto]

Here is the link: cardplayer

[Ed Miller]

Wow... spooky. I just posted my thoughts on this situation for the "on the river" scenario.

[ChipWrecked]

Gah!
(frustrated outburst indicating I should know this but don't)

The assumption of independence is reasonable for stud and draw games, but not hold‘em. Do you see why?

I will guess this is because hold'em is using a community board. [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

[Ed Miller]

I will guess this is because hold'em is using a community board.

That is correct. In stud or draw, if there are two draws out against you, then each draw gets his own card so they are roughly independent (not completely independent because they obviously can't each get the same card). For instance, if both opponents are on flush draws of different suits, then each opponent will make his flush draw roughly independently of the other. Sometimes both will miss, sometimes one will hit and the other will miss, and sometimes they both will hit. In holdem, though, if both your opponents are on flush draws, then they either both hit or both miss... and it is the same to you as if you were only drawing against one hand. Thus, they are not drawing independently.

[Gus Contos]

"In holdem, though, if both your opponents are on flush draws, then they either both hit or both miss... and it is the same to you as if you were only drawing against one hand. Thus, they are not drawing independently."

Except, of course, when they are drawing to two different flushes.

GC

[Tommy Angelo]

David,

"When the pot contains three bets to start, your expectation by raising is ... 2.20 bets. ... Your expectation from calling is ... 2.24 bets. Calling is better."

This paragraph would have been hilarious, had you meant it to be.

"When the pot is originally four bets, raising nets ... 2.80 bets. Calling nets 2.78 bets. Now, raising is better."

LOL! If one option nets, say, 2.000000000002 bets, and its alternative nets 2.000000000001 bets, can we call it an irrelevant decision? If not, then how many zeros are required?

Tommy

[togilvie]

As you noted, assuming independence in Hold'em is an oversimplification. That said, are these results (generally speaking) still valid?

Specifically, as the pot grows larger, it becomes increasingly correct to raise to knock out the the caller behind you. Seems to me that this should also hold true in Hold'em. Is that correct? Is there a way to adjust for the correlation in opponent hands?

[pudley4]

You never gave us the answer to this

[David Sklansky]

Tommy. The column was meant to show how to CALCULATE the answer, not how to play a particular hand. I happened to pick a hypothetical example where the answer turned out to be close. How could you not realize that?