YTD: +$23138.19
All good things come in threes. Trilogies for a start. Rocky films as another. After the interlude of the last post, I thought it would be interesting to look at some hands that highlighted some of the key points made in my PLO quiz and answer posts:
The Dave D Factor
One of the things I admitted, or maybe conceded, was that much of my play revolved around putting my money in when I was mathematically getting the best of it. This isn’t exactly rocket science of course, but I felt it was something my foes didn’t necessarily understand. Here’s an interesting example of this:
$1000 PL Omaha Hi
Table Table 39938 (Real Money)
Seat 10 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: pandirector ( $1000 )
Seat 3: Vivaldi1 ( $1000 )
Seat 4: BUGSY5040 ( $1415 )
Seat 6: THAIHOLDEM ( $1118.25 )
Seat 8: Efletch ( $510 )
Seat 10: gostop999 ( $6153 )
Seat 9: Hero ( $1872 )
Seat 5: Mordin1 ( $1144.25 )
Seat 1: MAKE4_KILL_U ( $990 )
Seat 7: flash11 ( $580 )
MAKE4_KILL_U posts small blind [$5].
pandirector posts big blind [$10].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Ad 8c Qd 5d ]
BUGSY5040 folds.
Mordin1 folds.
THAIHOLDEM folds.
flash11 calls [$10].
Efletch calls [$10].
Hero calls [$10].
gostop999 calls [$10].
MAKE4_KILL_U folds.
pandirector checks.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 3d, Ts, 6d ]
pandirector bets [$52.25].
flash11 folds.
Efletch calls [$52.25].
Hero calls [$52.25].
gostop999 raises [$313.5].
pandirector is all-In.
Efletch is all-In.
Hero calls [$937.75].
gostop999 raises [$4198.75].
Hero is all-In.
** Dealing Turn ** [ 5h ]
** Dealing River ** [ Qh ]
gostop999 shows [ Tc, 9s, 3s, Th ] three of a kind, tens.
pandirector doesn't show [ Td, Jd, 3h, Js ] two pairs, tens and threes.
Efletch shows [ 7c, 6h, 3c, 4h ] a straight, three to seven.
Hero doesn't show [ Ad, 8c, Qd, 5d ] two pairs, queens and fives.
gostop999 wins $2650.25 from side pot #3 with three of a kind, tens.
gostop999 wins $1744 from side pot #2 with three of a kind, tens.
gostop999 wins $1470 from side pot #1 with three of a kind, tens.
Efletch wins $2052 from the main pot with a straight, three to seven.
Interestingly, I was getting a good price on my calls, even though I was counterfitted by the other diamonds being out there. Also note what a blunder Efletch makes in this hand. Even though he gets 3 to 1 for his money, he still isn’t get the right price. This is a milder example of my point that even good players make terrible mistakes in these spots.
The Fabrizio Fumble
Pete Fab raised an interesting point, which I mostly ignored, that sometimes you *think* you are in a good spot, but in actually fact you are being strangled. These don’t happen that often, but this was an interesting example against a LAP:
POKERSTARS GAME OMAHA POT LIMIT ($3/$6)
Table 'Harpalyke' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: DextSiegler ($767 in chips)
Seat 2: Tekkie ($246 in chips)
Seat 3: lokemupsally ($691.45 in chips)
Seat 4: dmacgran ($600 in chips)
Seat 6: otro ($240 in chips)
Seat 7: someclown ($2302.25 in chips)
Seat 8: kylki ($679.50 in chips)
Seat 9: Hero ($1482.25 in chips)
DextSiegler: posts small blind $3
Tekkie: posts big blind $6
otro: posts big blind $6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Qd 9h Tc 8d]
lokemupsally: raises $6 to $12
dmacgran: calls $12
otro: calls $6
someclown: folds
kylki: calls $12
Hero: calls $12
DextSiegler: calls $9
Tekkie: calls $6
*** FLOP *** [9s Qc 6d]
DextSiegler: checks
Tekkie: checks
lokemupsally: bets $36
dmacgran: folds
otro: folds
kylki: folds
Hero: raises $132 to $168
DextSiegler: folds
Tekkie: folds
lokemupsally: raises $417 to $585
Hero: calls $417
*** TURN *** [9s Qc 6d] [4h]
lokemupsally: bets $94.45 and is all-in
Hero: calls $94.45
*** RIVER *** [9s Qc 6d 4h] [7h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
lokemupsally: shows [Qs Ks Qh Td] (three of a kind, Queens)
Hero: shows [Qd 9h Tc 8d] (a straight, Six to Ten)
Hero collected $1439.90 from pot
For some reason I had convinced myself that I had played Lokem b4 and that he was a LAP. I’m not sure after this hand If Lokem was a LAP then I was in great shape here, but in actually fact I was in a world of unspeakable hurt.
The Pete B Problem
One of the things Pete B raised was I was underestimating my opponents. Perhaps, I replied, but one of the things that struck me, and keeps on striking me, is how seemingly good players make hideously bad errors in the area of making plays that are putting themselves allin in big pots. Here is one that so horrified me that four months later I could instantly recall it. What made it more bizarre was that Reydel was a strong, tight player.
$1000 PL Omaha Hi
Table Table 48783 (Real Money)
Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Barnielle ( $2723.1 )
Seat 2: ISSIMI ( $925 )
Seat 3: Hero ( $2187 )
Seat 4: ReydelMundo1 ( $2051 )
Seat 5: dakyras ( $1805.5 )
Seat 8: KrIs2704 ( $1915 )
Seat 10: MAKE4_KILL_U ( $2402 )
Seat 7: dismas ( $300 )
Seat 9: Cubus ( $572.5 )
Seat 6: suziemarie ( $787.5 )
ReydelMundo1 posts small blind [$5].
dakyras posts big blind [$10].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Ad 4c 9d Tc ]
suziemarie calls [$10].
dismas folds.
KrIs2704 folds.
Cubus folds.
MAKE4_KILL_U folds.
Barnielle folds.
ISSIMI calls [$10].
Hero raises [$30].
ReydelMundo1 calls [$25].
dakyras folds.
suziemarie calls [$20].
ISSIMI calls [$20].
** Dealing Flop ** [ Ks, Jc, 8c ]
ReydelMundo1 bets [$127].
suziemarie folds.
ISSIMI folds.
Hero raises [$500].
ReydelMundo1 calls [$373].
** Dealing Turn ** [ 8d ]
ReydelMundo1 checks.
Hero bets [$1000].
ReydelMundo1 is all-In.
Hero calls [$521].
** Dealing River ** [ 2s ]
Hero shows [ Ad, 4c, 9d, Tc ] a pair of eights.
ReydelMundo1 shows [ As, Kh, Jh, Qd ] two pairs, kings and jacks.
ReydelMundo1 wins $4169 from the main pot with two pairs, kings and jacks.
Now my play needs some explanation. At the time I was raising with a lot of hands in position so this was certainly not an “I have AA raise”. Also, Reydel was not the kind of player who would lead out with the nut flush draw, and I felt that two pair or a small set were his most likely hands.
His play on the turn is unfathomable. There is no reason to think that I don’t have a full here. And if he called on the flop thinking I have AA, he has now turned into a monster dog. Furthermore, what hand can I pass for 500 into a 3500 pot? This is classis DIYDDIYD of the most insane order. No read or feel can compensate for the fact that check raising in this spot cannot be the right play.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
That last hand is definitely interesting. All I can think is that he was on tilt, or he knows your play and was sure you had a big draw.
Joewatch
Hi Big Dave,
Just wanted to thank you for your links to some of your previous articles and to say that I'm enjoying the opportuinity to read through current and past ones as well. Like finding a $100 bill in an old pair of jeans about to be tossed, it's always an unexpected pleasure to discover an interesting and well-written blog. Lots of good stuff here.
GROAN
Joe,
Check out "Mandelbrot Set" and the "Dumb and Dumber" posts. The error by Rey is a "Damned If You Do, Damned If You Dont" type (DIYDDIYD for short).
A "read" cannot justify it, certainly not online.
gl
dd
GROAN,
Thanks for the kind words, well timed as I was in blog apathy mode the last few days.
If you do want to comment on an older post, and this means all my Constant Readers, then I do get those comments via Blogspot, so feel free to do so. Might help if you said where you are tho, as I dont get that info.
cheers
Dave
Gerg,
Tx for the detailed response.
Firstly, maths is a word, if you speak "proper" English, not the colony version.
I know, from our 2+2 fun, that PLO is not your mainstay, and I think you've made some assumptions which aren't valid, although your analysis is interesting and "may" be how Reyel thought it through.
First off, and I think its key, is that the "its less likely you have that hand because I have XXX" argument is ONLY valid before the bets take place. Once action takes place, my betting further clarifies what probability indicated prior to this. In reality, and its a subtext of this example, is that Reyel should pass for the raise on the flop. Passing top two with no improvers is no crime in PLO. And I would have raised with bottom set here also.
The turn of course is the crux of the matter. I have slightly underbet the pot. And of course unless against a complete fish, I would bet here with a full house too, as NOT betting would make it more likely that I had the full than not. After raising the flop I bet the turn a huge % of the time. Also the size of the bet was carefully thought about. It isn't the pot. It's a round number which is to make it more tempting. But importantly it shows he has NO check rasing equity to make me pass. Even a bet of say 800 would preserve the illusion that he could check raise me off the hand.
Also, if you run the numbers through for the turn for an EV calculation, even based on a generous I am bluffing 50% of the time here, then he is making a marginal -EV play. This is the essence of the DIYDDIYD problem: when you are right, I still have plenty of outs; but when you are wrong, you are drawing almost dead.
The Americanism 'math' is one of the few that really set my teeth on edge.
'Maths' is short for 'mathematics', PLURAL.
You wouldn't say 'do the mathematic' or 'I study mathematic'.
89TJ
"I study econ(s)"? Presuming you mean economics, I didnt realise it required study :)
The flaw in your assumption is that I check behind him with all my good fullhouses and some of the weaker ones. The reason I don't, is the reason you highlight...I should check them because I have him drawing nearly dead. But stop for a minute. If you were in Reyel's spot, and a guy raised preflop, raised on the flop and then checked on the turn when one of the cards that could only have helped his "described" hand hits, what's the first thing you think? He's hit the full, you think. And even if I haven't, my other "described" hand of AA with the suit has now shot in front. If you are an (alledgedly) good player, and you are playing another good player (he was tight at least, a 24/5 PT stat kinda guy) then you *MUST* bet the turn here. The raise on the turn promised it. And this also means that sometime you get to win with your draw too. Remember, although its unlikely, he *could* have the nut flush draw, which he now has to pass to my bet.
So in conclusion, assuming the absolute best case which you describe, he is EV neutral ish. Assuming my more aggressive, but not even worse case views, he is seriously to bad -EV. This is a meta-DIYDDIYD again :)
Finally, and somewhat tangentally, if you are right or he has somehow seen through the conundrum, then he must bet out instead. A PLO Stop n Go is the only way to proceed as his check raise now cannot make me pass my drawing hands. If he bets out, he gets me to pass sometimes, and if I raise, he could also pass, at least in theory. By checkraising he maximises his losses, and also ensures that I get a chance to draw as well.
Thanks again
Dave
Dave
I want to get involved in this discussion but I need to think more on the hand.
I’m heading home now so here is a quick analysis.
Firstly I don’t think Reydel’s play was as horrible as you think.
Regarding his call of your reraise on the flop, you’re right - ‘Passing top two with no improvers is no crime in PLO”, however he could have hit a Ten also to give him a straight. I think he called because of that extra chance of improving, AND a feeling that he may be ahead on the flop. But he didn’t want to escalate the pot just yet – he was probably hoping that he might get to see the river for free if he didn’t improve on the turn.
You mention that the size of your turn bet was carefully thought out. It indicates to Reydel that he has no check-raising equity to make you pass. I think that making you pass via a check-raise was the last thing on his mind either before or after your turn bet.
I reckon that his reason for calling your turn bet is that he is saying to himself that “I felt that I was ahead on the flop, but I wasn’t certain enough to bet, but now I’ve been put under pressure by a very aggressive post flop player who may be on a draw. If he had AA, he may have checked behind, therefore I may still be ahead. If I just call, there is no way I can fold to a river bet, therefore I will go all-in, and if he is on a draw he will call me, so it’s a better EV play to go all-in than to just call”.
The above analysis is incomplete and maybe not fully thought-out (I'll have more time to think about it tomorrow).
Comments/criticism appreciated.
Kevin
Kev and Gerg,
On consideration I agree now that the catagorization of the play to truely terrible was wrong. EV neutral would be a correct description. That is one of the benefits of this blog. I get to disclaim on stuff, get proved wrong and then admit it to my adoring public :)
Just like lots of other poker forums. OK, maybe not.
Gerg, I do think you are showing a bit of 2+2itis. I was wrong and misread your post about checking a full. But you are wrong to say that if I always bet the draw here it makes his play more correct. In fact, it just means that his play should reflect the maths more because I have no tells now as to the hand I have. Also, this is a very unusual situation. I raised preflop, got bet into by a tight player on the flop and then raised him again. This in itself is not a regular occurence and we both knew it. Also, I don't think you are thinking through his stop n go options. If you concede that based on my play he cannot really "know" what I have, then the stop and go is better simply because it increases his overall EV. He gets to win the pot uncontested in nearly 50% of cases. He may even get me to pass the AA option too.
Anyway tx guys, off for another slice of humble pie.
gl
Dave D
Gerg,
I was being a bit unkind. Another of the symptoms of 2+2 is that people will go to great lengths to prove that they are right. I felt that your last post wasn't as tightly put together and was flailing around a little. This could also have been subconcious sour grapes becuae you actually *were* right :) So I unreservedly withrdaw the 2+2itis accusation. Until next time ;-)
gl
Dave
Dave
If you don’t mind I just want to make a final post on the above. Apologies if I am repeating some stuff that has already been said.
Firstly, I think Gergery’s replies have been very good. By far the most incorrect thing he said was that he sucks at PLO. He did some quite impressive calculations to back up his points. I have to come down strongly on his side regarding the Bayesian probabilities.
I also felt you were a bit harsh as I don’t think he was ‘flailing around a little’ at all.
However I think this hand was far more about personalities than mathematics. I wasn’t the one sitting at the table but you said that Reydel was a strong tight player. You stated that you had been raising with a lot of hands in position, so I assume it’s fairly safe to say that Reydel would view you as loose and aggressive. So, having said that he must know that if he was going to get involved in a hand with you out of position, then he just couldn’t roll over when you put the pressure on.
So, onto the hand.
His call of your raise on the flop is acceptable given that you have an aggressive table image, there is a good chance that he is ahead, and he has 7 improvers. However I think he bailed out when it was his turn to act on the turn. If he was prepared to call on the flop because he was putting you on a draw, then he should have following through with a bet on the turn. Maybe the fact that the board paired caused him some indecision, and he took the ‘safe’ option of checking. However when you then raised on the turn, he went with his read that you were on a draw and made the best EV play by going all-in.
The only way his check on the turn was the best play was if he knew that you were going to bet. And he could not know this, so his check was a mistake. And as you say, a bet by him also has the advantage of maybe making you fold AA.
So, in summation I think Reydel felt that he had to make a stand against an aggressive player, as otherwise he would be playing too weak-tight. He played his hand correctly apart from his moment of weakness on the turn.
Apologies again if I’m just covering the same ground. I just wanted to put my thoughts in print so that when I reread this in 6 months time, I can see if I still think the same way.
Comments appreciated.
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin,
I'm sorry! I'm wrong! Jeez you guys have no mercy. Other people's blogs, you catch them out, they don't say tickadeeboo, and they don't reply to you again.
On my home turf I have to do mea culpas incessently as my woolly thinking and poor play is Goodfella kicked to death!
Seriously though.
I didnt want to nickpick on *exactly* what I felt was looser in Gerg's post, but just stuff like " then his play could very well be correct" (in reference to a read on me). As he had already proved, tyvm, was that this play was neutral ish. It was almost impossible to be very correct, unless Reydel had Hellmuth like soul searching abilities. But this is, and was, nitpicking and sour grapes. You guys were right, I was wrong (again).
Onto your post (finally). Just two points. When I said raising with a range of hands, I perhaps wasnt being quite clear. I hadn't gone all LAG. Of all the alledgedly winning players I know, I raise preflop about the least. At the moment, I am almost not raising preflop at all...maybe 3-4%. By contrast, back then, I was maybe ranging bewtween 5-8%. Still much lower than most winning players but considerably higher than usual. I doubt anyone who has played with me, then or now, feels that I lean on them too much preflop at all. Probably quite the opposite.
Lastly, your point of "The only way his check on the turn was the best play was if he knew that you were going to bet" I disagree with for all the reasons stated in prior posts. Simply put, his EV increases.
gl
Dave D
Dave
I wasn’t writing just so I could kick you when you were down !
I just wanted to record my own analysis of the hand in question and your blog seemed like a good spot.
AND you should be flattered that I am arguing with you at all – the only reason I have the cheek to take you on is because I have learned so much from your blog !
And as a further boost to your ego, I’ve been cutting and pasting some of your entries into word docs so that I can read and reread them. I did the same thing a few years ago with Greg Raymer’s no-limit tournament posts on 2+2, long before he became WSOP champion I hasten to add.
So, are you feeling better now ?
Regards
Kevin
PS – And I’m not going to discuss the apparent contradiction in your last point above. Oops !
Really interesting hand, and set of replies.
I think the Maths complicates what is really quite simple
As Gergery said, you simply don't bet that much if you've hit your full or even trips.
He sensed the draw. Worse case is you have flush and straight draws.... and he's still favourite with one card to go.
Ok, I made it no further than the inital hand in this post, and maybe Im missing something or its late or whatever, but uhhhhh, I don't get it. Where is this "good" price you speak of? There's the 1st and 2nd guy all-in for about 1k and 500, and the last guy who has you covered so you're getting about 3.3:1.8 or so. I know there was already some money in the pot but its a fairly nominal amount. This situation is obviously alot better for you if you're shorter stacked, but even then at best you're getting 3:1, which is roughly your odds of making the flush without the board pairing, no????? And then you have some super longshot backdoor draws that don't amount to much. I dunno, 'splain it to me.
Anon,
If you really think I dont bet that much with trips or a full you are mistaken. I have bet the pot with quads in some spots.
If you really think this is to do "with sensing" then you need to reread the other replies, or become Phil Hellmuth.
gl
Dave
Gimme,
Roughly speaking my return on my money was the same as my chance of winning the hand. To be precise, it was slightly less, but near enough. The point was this made the marginal hand quite playable, even though a lot of people might have thought otherwise. Maybe "good" was an exaggeration, but I lot of folk would have thought it a clearcut pass.
gl
Dave D
Dave, I like your blog, but you're losin me. Please indulge me a bit and do the "maths", or let me know if mine are grossly inaccurate in some way. You need 3:1 to break even, you are getting roughly 2:1, maybe a tad less. This is not "slightly" less, this is bad. And even if it were only a marginally -EV play, how can you use this as an example where the majority are mistaken about the correct play, when it really is just that, a losing play.
Gimme,
Your maths are wrong. I am about 33% to win this pot. The odds are roughly 2:1, assuming that I am swept all in by the big stack. Its close, but marginally no cigar.
As to the "how can I..." Well, I am not always right. And trying to find hands that are meaningful when you play 300-800 of them a day is not easy. This one stuck in my memory and I thought it was interesting because so many people would think it was very -EV as you yourself illustrated. But when I double checked it after the post I realised it wasnt as good as I originally thought. As this post has abundantly shown, I am not always right, far from it. But then again, this is free, right.
gl
Dave
Kev,
Tx for the kind words. I wasnt being sensitive, just facetious. Despite the huge ego it takes to maintain this blog, I dont have a huge ego with regards to being right and such.
gl
dd
Dave, I am assuming you need to make your flush with one of 7 diamonds, and then parlay that with the condition that the board cannot pair (as you are almost certainly up against a set), and that looks like about 3:1 to me, where is my mistake?
Aksu,
I dont believe we are talking about different things. He does mention that another player had a flush draw, but this doesn't enter into the odds Im talking about when making the decision in the middle of the hand. Another player may or may not have some of your diamonds, so it doesn't really enter into the equation since these are unknowns. I think maybe he's just thinking along the lines of "well, Im gonna make my nut flush 1/3 of the time, so Im getting 2:1". I dont know, but thats what it sounds like. Of course, as I said before, you have to assume the board doesn't pair, hence 3:1, and you're also holding 3 diamonds which makes it slightly worse. With more evenly matched stack sizes, and maybe a gutshot (aghemm... middle pinner) in there, I think the point would have been more valid. As it is, and Im really not trying to be a nitpicky ass about this, I think its a plain as day obvious fold.
Oh ok, I finally see what all the fuss is about. You're talking about your odds being 2:1 after running all the hands after they were shown, just did it myself and you're about 32%. I was talking about your thought process sitting there at the table thinking "Ok, whats my pot equity if Im up against a set", and when you run the hands when you're only up against gostop and not the other guys who happened to have alot of his boat outs, you're about 28% (not quite 3:1, but a scenario where I think you'd need about that price to justify a profitable call). Cheers.
Regarding the nut flush draw - pot odds or not you were still a 70% favourite to be losing your entire stack.
Does that not come into your thinking at all? Or are you confident about taking those risks knowing that you can reload?
Post a Comment