Friday, September 09, 2005

Dead Presidents to Represent Me

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.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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

Big Dave D said...

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

Big Dave D said...

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

Gergery said...

I'm not sure I agree that Reydel's play is so horrible there. I'm not going to give him gold stars for masterful play, but it seems reasonable.

Consider that he has AKQJ, and the board is KJ8, so 1) the chances of you having AAxx is a bit less, and 2) he has KJ so the chances of you having KK or JJ is significantly less.

Then figure that he leads out in to the preflop raiser, who then reraises him. Would you do that with AAxx there? Pretty much never, unless xx match well. Would you raise preflop with 88xx? Sometimes, but often you’d call with 8876 type hand, or fold with 8824 rainbow. So that leaves a big wrap or flushdraw, and you’d definitely raise preflop and on the flop with AQT w 2 clubs or QT9 w clubs.

So if I’m Reydel, I figure you for a flushdraw or wrap significantly more likely according to the math (there is no ‘s’ in that word btw), and 2-pair or set possible

Then the 8 comes on the turn and when he checks, you jam $1k in, a full pot bet. Would you do that with KK/JJ/88? No, I don’t think so. You’d bet smaller wanting some action with 88/KK, and you’d want to find out where you were with J8 type hands or perhaps encourage a bluff.

So now based on the flop read and turn read, I’d put you on a wrap as highly likely. Since you are committed, he must risk $1500 to win $2500. so he only needs to be correct on his read ~40% of the time. Sure, if he’s wrong he’s got ~4 outs and if he’s right maybe you have 12 outs, so let’s say his read needs to be right 55% or the time or so, just doing simple math (remember, no ‘s’!) in my head.

All he would really need here is some sort of read on what big turn bets mean – how frequently do you do that with wraps vs. boats? If he has a decent read then it can be a fine play. I wouldn’t do it without some read, but I certainly don’t think his play was terrible.

Now, if I could only post a picture to convey the above….

-greg

Big Dave D said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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

Gergery said...

Ok Dave,

Because I suck at PLO and want to get better and because I’m a tad bored today, we’ll have another go (of course by tiny side of the Pond grammar rules perhaps I should say “another goes” at this since shortening words should keep the ‘s’.

First off, I don’t think I’ve made any assumption that were faulty. But if you think I did, then spell them out a little more clearly. Perhaps you feel my probability commentary is faulty, as when you note that probability is only valid before bets take place. I’d actually say you’re only partially correct. After bets take place you can’t use simple probabilities anymore, but must instead use Bayesian calculations. But that doesn’t change my prior post or analysis, as I took that in account. And in fact, since you note you’d continue on the flop a huge % of the time, I’m not sure it changes the calculations enormously.

Third, the calculations on the turn go something like this: let’s assume you both know you are pot committed. So if he check-raises your turn, then he can win $2,648 which is the $1,127 in the pot plus your remaining stack of $1,521, and if he loses he loses his additional stack of $1,521. Then, assume for simplicity that he can expect you to have one of two hands. Either 8Jxx hand where you are crushing him and he has a 11.6% equity, or you have the hand you did have, and he has a 67.5% equity. His equity gets a bit worse if you have JJ, but then it gets a bit better if you could have say, Aqxx with clubs. So revisit the % if you like, but it’s probably close.

Fourth, So we get these math equations (spelled correctly, mind you).
If he is crushed by your boat, then = 11.6% * 2,648 + .89(-1,521) = -1,062
And if he is ahead to your wrap, then = .675 * 2,648 + .89 (-1,521) = +1,293

Then if you let x= the probability Dave has the boat, and solve for x so that the EV is equal, we find that his EV is neutral when boat probability is 54.9%. (note: that 54.9% is extremely close to the 55% I noted in the last post.)

Fifth, so, the question remains then, how likely is it that Dave has the boat, vs. having the wrap/flushdraw? Here’s where Greg’s combinatorics get a bit fuzzy, so bear with me.

Let’s calculate the chances of you having certain 3-card combinations. For you to have KKx here, that’s C(2,2) * C(43,1) = 43. Same thing with JJ, and after we’ve seen the turn, with 88 as well. So 43*3 = 129 ways you have a boat here. There are some other hands with 8xxx that you could have, but then you would need to be raising preflop and on the flop with them, so that limits them pretty much to T98x or perhaps A8x with clubs. So let’s say that’s another 70 or so combinations for simplicity. Net, we’ve got around 200 ways you could be beating him.

And let’s assume you would make that raise with any wrap or flushdraw where you have 13+outs, and maybe toss in some 8 out hands with pairs. Say, AQT, QT9, JT9, KT9, T97, AT with 2 clubs. Take just the QT9, KT9, T97 hands and alone that’s C(4,1)*C(4,1)*C(12,1) = 192 combinations. Throw in the AT hands are you are well over 250. Net, using pure math it looks ~55-60% of the time you have a wrap/flush here, and you only needed it ~45% of the time.

Sixth, so ok, let’s adjust that based on how you’d play. Sometimes you just check behind with this giant wrap. So maybe we adjust those probabilities downward. But then sometimes you must check behind with a weaker boat, if for no other reason than to mix up your frequencies. After all Dave, if you have J8x on the turn here, you should be checking behind fairly often as your opponent had just bet heavily on this flop. If he had KK/JJ you are crushed and if he bet out on a flush/straight wrap you want him bluffing – classic way-ahead-way-behind spot. And of course, you already noted that you bet most hands on the turn that you could have on the flop. As a result, I don’t think there is a lot to adjust from point 5. But if you disagree, note which other hands you’d be betting or not betting with and how frequently and toss them in the mix above.

So, in conclusion (and I’ll guess those 3 words will be your favorite phrase in this post) based on math, Bayesian probability, pot odds and betting frequencies, I think it is a fairly close decision as to whether Reydel should continue on the turn. Against an unknown opponent, I agree folding is best. But certainly against some opponents and with some reads, I think his continuing is correct. And I don’t think his play can be described as horrible in any event.

--greg

PS - do you say, "I study econs", too?

Big Dave D said...

"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

Anonymous said...

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

Gergery said...

I’m not sure where you get that assumption that I would not bet a full house, as I never made it. Actually I assume you bet most fullhouses there and a significant but smaller percentage of your draws.

If you could have AA with the flushdraw there too, then ok, that’s more ways of dealing out hands that have much better odds, and I didn’t include that in my prior post. So add a bunch of combinations to the ‘boat scenario’ and maybe now the chances you have a wrap are not 55% but are closer to 45%. Still, that does not make it anywhere close to big EV-, but instead makes perhaps slightly EV negative. Net, I’d guess Reydel’s play is still slightly wrong in the absolute, but quite possibly correct given certain reads/opponents.

And why would he want you to pass your drawing hands? If I had a 67% equity advantage with more money left to bet than was in the pot, then I want you putting your money in, not folding to a stop n go.

Furthermore, if you are continuation betting with your flush/wrap hands very often there, then I’d say your frequencies are off and you are bluffing too much. I’d guess you should be betting ~90% of the time with your boats and maybe 65% of the time with your flushwraps. But those numbers are just estimates from my head – it’s actually just a solvable math problem based on frequencies using game theory.

So if your comment on frequency of betting your flushwraps was accurate, and Reydel picked up on that, then his play could very well be correct.

Honestly, I think you are not considering some important points here Dave but are sticking to your initial POV and repeating it.
--Greg

Big Dave D said...

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

Gergery said...

What is 2+2itis? Focusing too much on the maths (hey if you can say you’re wrong I’ll try a new spelling out)?

On the things I like about your blog is that you can change your mind and agree with someone elses POV. Also that you are honest about your losses. I rarely see either of those happen at 2+2.

Big Dave D said...

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

Anonymous said...

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

Big Dave D said...

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

Anonymous said...

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 !

Anonymous said...

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.

GimmeDaWatch said...

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.

Big Dave D said...

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

Big Dave D said...

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

GimmeDaWatch said...

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.

Big Dave D said...

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

Big Dave D said...

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

GimmeDaWatch said...

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 said...

Gimme,

I think you and Dave are talking about different things. In original post Dave points out that "Interestingly, I was getting a good price on my calls, even though I was counterfitted by the other diamonds being out there." This is not the usual case, hence the word interesting.

More likely scenario is 3:1 as you calculated. But with these exact hands it is about 2:1. And the question "why" remains...

Aksu

GimmeDaWatch said...

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.

GimmeDaWatch said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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?