Ok, so it's been a while since the last quizz question, but as you can tell I haven't been playing much.
Well today I played in an online no limit tournament when the following hand came down:
Blinds: 50-100
Stage: Level 5
One player limped for 100, a middle position player made it 350, and I called on the button with 7 7.
The flop came J J J and the pre-flop raiser bet 500. I had about 2500 left and my opponent had about 1700 left after betting the 500. I called the bet leaving myself with 2000.
The turn came a King and my opponent checked, as did I. The river came another King for a final board of J J J K K, meaning that I was now playing the board.
My opponent checked the river, so with 1950 in the pot what would you do?
(You know nothing about your opponent at all)
Full Version: quiz question #11
I think this is an easy check, hoping for the split. I have him AK/AQ/AA/KK/QQ here... possibly AJ or 1010 etc. but it seems unlikely considering he bet out (some tournament background information might be nice here).
If it's a 10 person game you're going to give the MP credit for a decent holding, raising to what I assume is 7xbb. I think it's 50/50 here whether he has a hand better than the board. The flop raise smells like an AK, and when the king hit it looks like he's trying to trap you, because it's definately a safe place to slowplay or hope to induce a bluff. The river is an even better spot for him to hope to induce the bluff. From his persepective I'd be thinking really how can my opponent improve unless he already holds the J or another J hits the board to split it (or the unlikely situation that you hold AA or KK and didn't re-raise)? I'm willing to let my opponent peel off a free card if I'm holding AK or AA or obviously KK. I'm actually kind of surprised you just called the flop raise, but then again your tournament history looks a little better on paper than mine.
I don't like risking my tournament in this situation, I'm happy to split the blinds and the 350 UTG's chipped in if it's a split, and even happier that I saved myelf my tourney if he does have AA, KK, or AK.
This is not even mentioning the fact that even if he doesn't have it, there's still a chance he's going to call your bet/all-in because he think's the board's the best hand. I think this is just uneccessarily risking your stack.
Let's look at it this way:
Scenario 1:
He has the better hand, you bet, he calls, you're in really rough shape now.
Scenario 2:
He has the better hand, you check, he takes the pot and you're still in decent shape.
Scenario 3:
You bet, he folds, and you win a 2000 pot instead of the 1000 you would have taken by checking and splitting.
Scenario 4:
You bet, he has the board as his best hand, but he calls anyway hoping for the split. You get the 1000.
Only 1 out of the 4 scenarios makes you money, and it's only 1000 net
If it's a 10 person game you're going to give the MP credit for a decent holding, raising to what I assume is 7xbb. I think it's 50/50 here whether he has a hand better than the board. The flop raise smells like an AK, and when the king hit it looks like he's trying to trap you, because it's definately a safe place to slowplay or hope to induce a bluff. The river is an even better spot for him to hope to induce the bluff. From his persepective I'd be thinking really how can my opponent improve unless he already holds the J or another J hits the board to split it (or the unlikely situation that you hold AA or KK and didn't re-raise)? I'm willing to let my opponent peel off a free card if I'm holding AK or AA or obviously KK. I'm actually kind of surprised you just called the flop raise, but then again your tournament history looks a little better on paper than mine.
I don't like risking my tournament in this situation, I'm happy to split the blinds and the 350 UTG's chipped in if it's a split, and even happier that I saved myelf my tourney if he does have AA, KK, or AK.
This is not even mentioning the fact that even if he doesn't have it, there's still a chance he's going to call your bet/all-in because he think's the board's the best hand. I think this is just uneccessarily risking your stack.
Let's look at it this way:
Scenario 1:
He has the better hand, you bet, he calls, you're in really rough shape now.
Scenario 2:
He has the better hand, you check, he takes the pot and you're still in decent shape.
Scenario 3:
You bet, he folds, and you win a 2000 pot instead of the 1000 you would have taken by checking and splitting.
Scenario 4:
You bet, he has the board as his best hand, but he calls anyway hoping for the split. You get the 1000.
Only 1 out of the 4 scenarios makes you money, and it's only 1000 net
I'd just check this one. It seems to be an all-in or check situation. And a 1000 bet could only end up with him coming back over and putting you all in anyway.
Too weak?
Best...
Too weak?
Best...
Definitely depends on the buy-in, I'll assume it was fairly large and that the player is at least average. The check on the turn makes me think pocket pair lower than kings, although he could be sneaky with like an AK knowing that there really aren't any bad cards that could hit.
I would estimate you're about 70% to split here, 30% that he has a better hand. (Kind of conservative, may be more like 80-20 here)
If you go all in (as opposed to checking):
Scenario 1: He has you beat (he would call) = -1700 (.3 probability given = -510)
Scenario 2: You go all in and it would be a split, but he folds = +1000(*.35) = +350 [Note: I assumed if you're splitting about half the time he'll call with that board and half the time you'd split; also you're only winning an extra 1000 since if you check it's a split]
Scenario 3: You go all in and he calls, and it's a split = Even
Net: -160 EV for pushing.
This is based a lot on rough estimates, and the math is actually worked out, but just from guessing I'd probably estimate it to be -EV to push and check.
Note: I rounded the 1950 to 2000 to make the calculations easier.
Anyone else have a completely different viewpoint on this one?
I would estimate you're about 70% to split here, 30% that he has a better hand. (Kind of conservative, may be more like 80-20 here)
If you go all in (as opposed to checking):
Scenario 1: He has you beat (he would call) = -1700 (.3 probability given = -510)
Scenario 2: You go all in and it would be a split, but he folds = +1000(*.35) = +350 [Note: I assumed if you're splitting about half the time he'll call with that board and half the time you'd split; also you're only winning an extra 1000 since if you check it's a split]
Scenario 3: You go all in and he calls, and it's a split = Even
Net: -160 EV for pushing.
This is based a lot on rough estimates, and the math is actually worked out, but just from guessing I'd probably estimate it to be -EV to push and check.
Note: I rounded the 1950 to 2000 to make the calculations easier.
Anyone else have a completely different viewpoint on this one?
I chose bet 1000, and if checkraised i would call expecting to chop. If he had you beat with either a jack or king, he should have bet and probably would have (thinking you would call expecting a chop). I would imagine he would have bet the turn since you called the flop, and the turn helped his hand (if he is still ahead of you).
So it looks like an almost certain chop, so the decision is really just about which bet is more likely to fold him. Personally i think the 1k bet looks more like a value bet, and is still enough to cripple him if he calls and loses. While all in looks like "We chop so I bluff!". It really depends on how you think the opponant will interpret different bet sizes, so it's hard to answer, but i like betting 1k, all in, and checking, in that order.
So it looks like an almost certain chop, so the decision is really just about which bet is more likely to fold him. Personally i think the 1k bet looks more like a value bet, and is still enough to cripple him if he calls and loses. While all in looks like "We chop so I bluff!". It really depends on how you think the opponant will interpret different bet sizes, so it's hard to answer, but i like betting 1k, all in, and checking, in that order.
I would say check. Because you know, unless he is holding queens or kings you are bound to split.
Check. While it's pretty unlikely that he can beat the board it's extremely unlikely he's going to fold, period. He'd be getting 2-1 on his money and can only lose to the case jack, one of two kings or pocket aces. We haven't shown any strength in the hand to suggest that we have the better hand so just check it and take the chop. Plus we're DN here, there's no need to risk a ton of chips in a situation with very little positive expectation and the potential to almost go broke.
Wow, this appears to be avery interesting quiz thus far, with votes for every option! In a few days I'll share with you all my opinion on the hand.
I'd be extremely interested to see an explanation of how checking isn't the correct call.
Well I have a lot to add, but I don't want to sway anybody just yet...
QUOTE (DanielNegreanu)
Well I have a lot to add, but I don't want to sway anybody just yet...
I'm intrigued to hear what you have to add... but I can't see any reason to do anything besides check.
Pushing into the nuts would suck.
So would betting and getting checkraised all in.
He might fold... but meh, is it really worth it to find out?
I'm suprised no one has said fold. We only have a full house, seven kicker. We gotta let this one go. :roll:
I am usually just checking here. You're check on the turn will probably induce your opponent to call with anything. Since betting rarely gains anything, just check.
I am usually just checking here. You're check on the turn will probably induce your opponent to call with anything. Since betting rarely gains anything, just check.
Looks like a push to me. Your opponent is not pot committed and has plenty of chips left to fold here. You have shown no aggression on the hand at all, so unless he's exceptionally tricky (or knows us better than we know him) he's not checking the nuts to us on the turn and river.
Morever, you have him covered so we're crippled but not out if he does have the nuts. I think it's an easy push to avoid the split. Only significant argument against a push here, IMO, is that you're risking 1700 to win 975. But I think he folds here enough to be worth it and I for one don't fear the nuts.
Jeff
Morever, you have him covered so we're crippled but not out if he does have the nuts. I think it's an easy push to avoid the split. Only significant argument against a push here, IMO, is that you're risking 1700 to win 975. But I think he folds here enough to be worth it and I for one don't fear the nuts.
Jeff
QUOTE (Sysvr4)
Looks like a push to me. Your opponent is not pot committed and has plenty of chips left to fold here. You have shown no aggression on the hand at all, so unless he's exceptionally tricky (or knows us better than we know him) he's not checking the nuts to us on the turn and river.
Morever, you have him covered so we're crippled but not out if he does have the nuts. I think it's an easy push to avoid the split. Only significant argument against a push here, IMO, is that you're risking 1700 to win 975. But I think he folds here enough to be worth it and I for one don't fear the nuts.
Jeff
Morever, you have him covered so we're crippled but not out if he does have the nuts. I think it's an easy push to avoid the split. Only significant argument against a push here, IMO, is that you're risking 1700 to win 975. But I think he folds here enough to be worth it and I for one don't fear the nuts.
Jeff
I see your point, I really do.
But you only have to be wrong once. And people do some goofy stuff online. If he has a jack, he knows you DON'T have a jack.
QUOTE (Sysvr4)
Looks like a push to me. Your opponent is not pot committed and has plenty of chips left to fold here. You have shown no aggression on the hand at all, so unless he's exceptionally tricky (or knows us better than we know him) he's not checking the nuts to us on the turn and river.
Morever, you have him covered so we're crippled but not out if he does have the nuts. I think it's an easy push to avoid the split. Only significant argument against a push here, IMO, is that you're risking 1700 to win 975. But I think he folds here enough to be worth it and I for one don't fear the nuts.
Jeff
Morever, you have him covered so we're crippled but not out if he does have the nuts. I think it's an easy push to avoid the split. Only significant argument against a push here, IMO, is that you're risking 1700 to win 975. But I think he folds here enough to be worth it and I for one don't fear the nuts.
Jeff
Not the nuts, but he could have a king or AA.
Again, even if he doesn't he's probably going to call with all that money in the pot.
Seems to me he's now thinking chop. Preflop raise sounds like 10s or QQ to me (but I'm a hack player).
Bets on the flop (staying with his preflop raise routine).
He bets out and you call. If the math is right, his flop bet of 500 was into 800 in the pot.
The King hits on the turn and he checks. Sure, he could be slow playing, but I don't think so.
The river comes another King and he checks. His only two aggressive bets were preflop and after the flop and then he checked up. Seems like some sort of mid-high pair.
If he's got a hand and he checks on the river, it seems a weak play. If he's got the board beat, and you checked the turn, there's no indication that you may try and steal the pot on the river, so there's no reason for him to think you're going to bet on the river.
I don't think he has the board beat. Seems like he may be a little scared of what you hold, but it's hard to know without seeing what your table image is (was).
I think he could be concerned that you hold a king, so I would push that bet and see what he does. I don't really think you're beat, it could just be a chop, but why give him half the money when he was not aggressive outside of defending his pre-flop raise.
Just my thoughts...But hey..I play the .25/.50 no limit game.
But..I did buy into it with $13,000.
LOL
I'm only kidding. Just enjoying the 'unique' opinions of your reading practice session.
Can't wait to hear if I'd have just lost my money.
Good for the guy if he slow played quads or A/K
Bets on the flop (staying with his preflop raise routine).
He bets out and you call. If the math is right, his flop bet of 500 was into 800 in the pot.
The King hits on the turn and he checks. Sure, he could be slow playing, but I don't think so.
The river comes another King and he checks. His only two aggressive bets were preflop and after the flop and then he checked up. Seems like some sort of mid-high pair.
If he's got a hand and he checks on the river, it seems a weak play. If he's got the board beat, and you checked the turn, there's no indication that you may try and steal the pot on the river, so there's no reason for him to think you're going to bet on the river.
I don't think he has the board beat. Seems like he may be a little scared of what you hold, but it's hard to know without seeing what your table image is (was).
I think he could be concerned that you hold a king, so I would push that bet and see what he does. I don't really think you're beat, it could just be a chop, but why give him half the money when he was not aggressive outside of defending his pre-flop raise.
Just my thoughts...But hey..I play the .25/.50 no limit game.
But..I did buy into it with $13,000.
LOL
I'm only kidding. Just enjoying the 'unique' opinions of your reading practice session.
Can't wait to hear if I'd have just lost my money.
Good for the guy if he slow played quads or A/K
Push. He doesn't have a king or a jack.
QUOTE (screech)
I'm suprised no one has said fold. We only have a full house, seven kicker. We gotta let this one go. :roll:
I am usually just checking here. You're check on the turn will probably induce your opponent to call with anything. Since betting rarely gains anything, just check.
I am usually just checking here. You're check on the turn will probably induce your opponent to call with anything. Since betting rarely gains anything, just check.
We're last to act on the river.. and our opponent has checked already. Folding seems like a slightly weak play IMHO :wink:
screech wrote:
I'm suprised no one has said fold. We only have a full house, seven kicker. We gotta let this one go.
Ok..I think that's my favorite response yet. I had to go back and read it a couple of times.
Full house 7 kicker is awesome! Yeah I think if your full house JJJKK with an 8 kicker, you could certainly push, but a fold is an option.
LOL...that's funny. I'm kind of waiting to see if anyone posts anything else about that.
Thanks...I needed that this morning.
I'm suprised no one has said fold. We only have a full house, seven kicker. We gotta let this one go.
Ok..I think that's my favorite response yet. I had to go back and read it a couple of times.
Full house 7 kicker is awesome! Yeah I think if your full house JJJKK with an 8 kicker, you could certainly push, but a fold is an option.
LOL...that's funny. I'm kind of waiting to see if anyone posts anything else about that.
Thanks...I needed that this morning.
The math guys are all saying check, but I think they are wrong. The preflop raise indicates some strength, but it is a standard size raise. He then does a normal continuation bet, but Daniel scares him by calling.
The key is the double check on the turn. If the the villian had AA, AK or any Jack or king he is really disciplined to sit on both the turn and the river. He has to expect Daniel to check the river again, not allowing him to reap the rewards of his good fortune. MOST online players will not check the turn and the river if they have what they think is the best hand. Based on that, I would expect a value bet out of the villian if he really had Daniel beat.
On the flip side, a $1000 bet from Daniel looks like a value bet to the villian. It looks like Daniel got tired of waiting for the Villian to bluff, and is hoping for a call by keeping the bet small. I think you really put the test to him if he is also playing the board.
The only fear is if he is a really timid player who has a king or aces and is afraid of the jack, but coming over an early position limper doesn't seem like a weak player. AND, if he is really that weak he will not push back.
The key is the double check on the turn. If the the villian had AA, AK or any Jack or king he is really disciplined to sit on both the turn and the river. He has to expect Daniel to check the river again, not allowing him to reap the rewards of his good fortune. MOST online players will not check the turn and the river if they have what they think is the best hand. Based on that, I would expect a value bet out of the villian if he really had Daniel beat.
On the flip side, a $1000 bet from Daniel looks like a value bet to the villian. It looks like Daniel got tired of waiting for the Villian to bluff, and is hoping for a call by keeping the bet small. I think you really put the test to him if he is also playing the board.
The only fear is if he is a really timid player who has a king or aces and is afraid of the jack, but coming over an early position limper doesn't seem like a weak player. AND, if he is really that weak he will not push back.
As I think about it more, no way this guy has a jack. Nobody would bet out when flopping quads and then check it down. In fact, the same thing goes with aces, you are already getting Daniel to call, why let up? It really feels like he made a play at the flop, when he got called he let the hand go. The river check really feels like he is no longer interested in this pot, and is hoping to split. I really think a bet is in order, no way is Daniel beat in this spot. The only question is push or $1000, and the value bet looks scarier to the villian.
QUOTE
As I think about it more, no way this guy has a jack. Nobody would bet out when flopping quads and then check it down. In fact, the same thing goes with aces, you are already getting Daniel to call, why let up? It really feels like he made a play at the flop, when he got called he let the hand go. The river check really feels like he is no longer interested in this pot, and is hoping to split. I really think a bet is in order, no way is Daniel beat in this spot. The only question is push or $1000, and the value bet looks scarier to the villian.
I concur.
Excellent discussion guys, keep it up!
the bottom line is you're risking crippling yourself for a pot you've already got half of anyway. This doesn't seem like a smart raise to me at all.
I agree with the posts stating the villian can't beat the board. So as the blinds come closer to getting interesting (intro to antes, etc) I believe it is important to start showing an aggressive table image for future hands.
Plus as the blinds increase, stealing the extra 1000 in chips is helpful.
Plus as the blinds increase, stealing the extra 1000 in chips is helpful.
Now a really smart guy with AK might realise on the turn that he is either massively ahead on an incredibly intimidating board (for an opponent) or massively behind (with no chance of him folding) and can play it no better than check it down.
Another huge benefit, if he percieves you to be an intelligent, aggressive player, is that you may bluff on either the turn or the river.
Obviously, by the river the same thing applies only now he knows you don't have KK. So he checks.
Having said that, and its possible, I still think he doesn't have it. For one he's far more likely to have another high/medium pair/AQ combination simply because the two kings are out there. It's extremely unlikely he has a jack. Everything play would fit with the standard way of playing a high pair such as QQ.
It's a close decision, between checking and betting 1000. It's a lot more likely he's not trapping but counter-weighted by the chance he'll call and you'll split anyway, the value of a bet on the (coupled with a call on the occasions he raises) river is small. With no reads its very close, especially if you're the calibre of player to be able to use your remaining chips well.
Another thing I've just though of is that, if as I put forward at the beginning, this guy is smart he'll know that there's more value in the long run from betting something like 800 than checking and hoping to induce a bluff. So it seems even a smart guy would bet the river.
So either you're up against an insanely tricky trappy guy who would rather trap you than bet for legitimate value, or you're going to chop. Over the long run, my choice is definately to bet 1000.
Another huge benefit, if he percieves you to be an intelligent, aggressive player, is that you may bluff on either the turn or the river.
Obviously, by the river the same thing applies only now he knows you don't have KK. So he checks.
Having said that, and its possible, I still think he doesn't have it. For one he's far more likely to have another high/medium pair/AQ combination simply because the two kings are out there. It's extremely unlikely he has a jack. Everything play would fit with the standard way of playing a high pair such as QQ.
It's a close decision, between checking and betting 1000. It's a lot more likely he's not trapping but counter-weighted by the chance he'll call and you'll split anyway, the value of a bet on the (coupled with a call on the occasions he raises) river is small. With no reads its very close, especially if you're the calibre of player to be able to use your remaining chips well.
Another thing I've just though of is that, if as I put forward at the beginning, this guy is smart he'll know that there's more value in the long run from betting something like 800 than checking and hoping to induce a bluff. So it seems even a smart guy would bet the river.
So either you're up against an insanely tricky trappy guy who would rather trap you than bet for legitimate value, or you're going to chop. Over the long run, my choice is definately to bet 1000.
QUOTE (blakheart)
As I think about it more, no way this guy has a jack. Nobody would bet out when flopping quads and then check it down. In fact, the same thing goes with aces, you are already getting Daniel to call, why let up? It really feels like he made a play at the flop, when he got called he let the hand go. The river check really feels like he is no longer interested in this pot, and is hoping to split. I really think a bet is in order, no way is Daniel beat in this spot. The only question is push or $1000, and the value bet looks scarier to the villian.
Thinking it through again, the check on the river screams that it's going to be split. I think he's going to call the 1000 hoping to split, but I'm not sure he'd put his tournament life on the line hoping for a split. I thinking pushing has the better chance to get him to fold.
I think that pushing is better online than it is live. Online, nobody knows you're Daniel Negreanu. Odds of the play working is better online imo. I would have an easier time calling if I could look accross the table and know I was up against a tricky player like DN.
QUOTE
The math guys are all saying check, but I think they are wrong.
Yeah, yeah. Berate the math guys.
You're just trying to get on DN's good side. :wink:
Push all-in. 2nd best option is check (closely behind).
Opponent checks both turn and river. If he had kings full or quads he would have bet the river hoping for DN to call for a split pot. I'm confident the person is has the board with either a pp q's or lower or aq (maybe worse). The way DN has played this, his opponent must bet on the river if he has a k, j or aces because DN either has quads or a k or nothing in which case he's probably thinking DN will check behind him if he holds the board too.
The player raised preflop and kept his lead on the flop which doesn't mean a lot. When DN called the flop bet the opponent may have thought that DN was holding high cards and didn't like the k on the turn or he's afraid of DN slowplaying the nuts. In any case, this is a prime spot to steal a good size pot of over 2k. Going all-in will put a lot of pressure on the opponent. Though DN's play looks weak, he would have played the hand the same with quads, possibly aces, and maybe even ak (the check on the turn is the only small hole in the ak theory).
Opponent checks both turn and river. If he had kings full or quads he would have bet the river hoping for DN to call for a split pot. I'm confident the person is has the board with either a pp q's or lower or aq (maybe worse). The way DN has played this, his opponent must bet on the river if he has a k, j or aces because DN either has quads or a k or nothing in which case he's probably thinking DN will check behind him if he holds the board too.
The player raised preflop and kept his lead on the flop which doesn't mean a lot. When DN called the flop bet the opponent may have thought that DN was holding high cards and didn't like the k on the turn or he's afraid of DN slowplaying the nuts. In any case, this is a prime spot to steal a good size pot of over 2k. Going all-in will put a lot of pressure on the opponent. Though DN's play looks weak, he would have played the hand the same with quads, possibly aces, and maybe even ak (the check on the turn is the only small hole in the ak theory).
By the way- if you flip seats with the other guy it is entirely possible that Daniel has either a Jack or pocket Aces and is trapping. If Daniel had a jack or aces, he could wait for the other guy to improve and then value bet the river. If Daniel had a jack the best play by far is to call the flop bet and hope you get bet into more. The way Daniel played that looks exactly like a guy who flopped quads and isn't an idiot.
And all you guys who figured the ev as negative that also works the other way around. If the villian can't beat the board it is -ev to call Daniel's bet. Plus calling and losing puts him in a big hole chip wise, and folding leaves him enough chips to go to war with.
And all you guys who figured the ev as negative that also works the other way around. If the villian can't beat the board it is -ev to call Daniel's bet. Plus calling and losing puts him in a big hole chip wise, and folding leaves him enough chips to go to war with.
How much was the tourney for? If you give the player enough credit just in being there that he must be halfway decent, make what looks like a value bet, otherwise go all in. He doesn't check a king twice there, only thing he has that has you beat is AA.
QUOTE (Sysvr4)
he's not checking the nuts to us on the turn and river.
I think this is the best point made so far. If this guy has a J or K, checking on the turn is an acceptable play to try and induce us to bluff. But after we check behind on the turn, he absolutely must bet the river and hope to get called (if he indeed ha a J or K). Therefore I think the likelyhood of him having the K or J is reduced.
Since we have him covered and it would mean his tournament is over if he loses, I think the right move here is to push all-in. Since he feared the K on the turn and river, I think there's a good chance he wont call. To push playing the board is one thing, but to call playing the board (for all of your chips) is totally different.
what about betting out 1000 making it look like a value bet on the river. If he doesn't have a hand then we are in good shape, if he comes over the top we are going to have to fold. Also I don't think we can get a call here because of the fact that this guy just put in a huge % of his stack
Lets look at it from the villains perspective...
Let's say the possible holdings for a middle position raise are AA-88 and AK. We've just raised to 350 and have a caller on the button.
What holdings could the button have to make the call? (We will assume from his perspective that the button is competent as well and wont be calling with two random cards with a Jack included)
It's quite possible to have called with a holding such as JTs in that position but more obvious holdings are another pair or a hand like AK.
After the flop we're betting any of our possible hands AA-88 + AK. (Especially on a board of JJJ) . With the highly unlikely scenario that the button has a jack in his holding the call merely confirms the belief that the holding has to be AK and a decent pocket pair. No one is calling here with a small suited connector or trash hand. From here on we will assume that the button does NOT have Quads.
For the Turn and River.
Assuming AA:
We might check the turn if we believe the K might have helped the button. Hoping to induce a bet from the button if its an AK holding. If the button's hand is anything lower than JJJKK then we're probably not going to get a call at this point.
The K on the river is a disgusting card. Our holding of JJJAA while it may be the best hand at this point, any value bet is almost certainly going to be called or raised only by someone with a K or a J. No other hand is calling any significant bet at this point. A value bet here is problematic and Im checking down hoping to win the pot in a showdown.
AK
This scenario would remind me completely of Scotty Nguyen's win in the Main event. "You call baby and it's all over" albeit with a slight variation on the way the Full house comes onto the board.
Checking the turn is a sensible play for either of these holdings. The button has called our raise preflop, then called our bet post flop. The button has a hand. With AK we're now ahead of every hand except for KK and AA, and with no reraise preflop and no raise post flop its hard to believe he has any of these holdings. (A majority of online players I've played with have re-raised with these holdings preflop and would almost certainly push post flop with that board.) We're chopping if it's AK that we're up against. Hopefully we can induce a bet from someone who has a pair and believes we've missed our hand or are scared by the K on the turn.
After we check and the button checks the turn its hard to believe we don't have the best hand. Now on the river the with a KKKJJ and a (JJJKK board) we're positive we have the hand locked. Why check this? It makes no sense to check as we're only going to get a bet on a chop or a complete bluff. We only make money on the bluff. We probably have the same chance of betting and the button calling believing that we're bluffing and wanting to chop as we do of inducing a bluff. There is also added value that if there is no call we dont show our hand, hiding our play. By betting we gain either a bet or the side advantage of hiding our hand. As the villain I'm almost inclined to push and overbet the pot hoping for a very loose call by someone who believes we're attempting to buy the pot or someone with AA and might think they're ahead.
KK
With KK we're doing the same on the turn as AK. The deck is crippled the only hand that calls a significant bet is the case J or the case K. We have a higher likelihood of making money by checking and hoping for a bet than betting.
On the river, we're golden. We know we're a 100% lock on the hand and hoping we're up against the case J or someone with AA. Again as in the AK scenario we probably have the same probability of making someone call believing we're bluffing as we do of having someone bluffing if we check. Again the added value is that we dont have to show our hand and a bet is probably better than checking and calling with a chance of missing a bet.
Pairs QQ and under.
We hate the K on the turn. The very possible AK holding has now hit. It's the only hand that could have been a dog to our hand and is now a favorite.
There are two perspectives on this:
From the mentality of a slightly weaker player we might check/fold to a bet from the button. In all likelihood however we're only getting called only if we're beaten. It is highly unlikely that anyone will call without having a K or a AA with this board.
(A stronger player might continue to bet this and with a call from the button check down the river... At the very least we have the opportunity to find out where we are in the hand. By checking we have absolutely no idea.)
The River. We're now playing the board. Even if we were ahead of someone who didn't have a K or AA it doesn't matter at this point. Out of position and unsure of where we are since we didn't bet the turn to find out it's almost impossible to bet this river. I'd check hoping for a chop and fold to a large bet.
Obviously there are many more scenarios but these are some likely reasons for the play to develop in this way if I were the middle position raiser.
Back to Daniel's perspective:
The way this hand developed screams of a pair (Not KK) I would have a difficult time believing that someone holding a King could check both the turn and the river hoping to induce a bet or be scared of the case J. We are chopping with all pairs QQ and under, and losing to AA.
In this instance I believe both pushing or checking are way ahead of a bet of $1000. It screams of weakness and I don't think it accomplishes anything. Even from a pure odds perspective you're getting called everytime which will accomplish nothing. Against a really strong player you're going to get raised out of the pot and a weak player will call you. This does nothing for us and cannot possibly be a good move.
I'd also put pushing ahead of checking. We're almost certainly not up against a K or a J. It's hard to fathom someone playing it that way. Pushing gives us the opportunity to take the whole pot if we're splitting and even make AA fold as that board would make it very difficult to call.
An additional aspect of this scenario is the chip stacks left for both players. With 1700 left the MP has enough to stay competitive while he's eliminated if he's up against a K or a J. It would be awfully difficult to make the call given even with an AA holding in this situation.
Aggression wins. I'd almost certainly try and push the person off the hand.
Pushing > Checking >>>>>>> Betting $1000
Let's say the possible holdings for a middle position raise are AA-88 and AK. We've just raised to 350 and have a caller on the button.
What holdings could the button have to make the call? (We will assume from his perspective that the button is competent as well and wont be calling with two random cards with a Jack included)
It's quite possible to have called with a holding such as JTs in that position but more obvious holdings are another pair or a hand like AK.
After the flop we're betting any of our possible hands AA-88 + AK. (Especially on a board of JJJ) . With the highly unlikely scenario that the button has a jack in his holding the call merely confirms the belief that the holding has to be AK and a decent pocket pair. No one is calling here with a small suited connector or trash hand. From here on we will assume that the button does NOT have Quads.
For the Turn and River.
Assuming AA:
We might check the turn if we believe the K might have helped the button. Hoping to induce a bet from the button if its an AK holding. If the button's hand is anything lower than JJJKK then we're probably not going to get a call at this point.
The K on the river is a disgusting card. Our holding of JJJAA while it may be the best hand at this point, any value bet is almost certainly going to be called or raised only by someone with a K or a J. No other hand is calling any significant bet at this point. A value bet here is problematic and Im checking down hoping to win the pot in a showdown.
AK
This scenario would remind me completely of Scotty Nguyen's win in the Main event. "You call baby and it's all over" albeit with a slight variation on the way the Full house comes onto the board.
Checking the turn is a sensible play for either of these holdings. The button has called our raise preflop, then called our bet post flop. The button has a hand. With AK we're now ahead of every hand except for KK and AA, and with no reraise preflop and no raise post flop its hard to believe he has any of these holdings. (A majority of online players I've played with have re-raised with these holdings preflop and would almost certainly push post flop with that board.) We're chopping if it's AK that we're up against. Hopefully we can induce a bet from someone who has a pair and believes we've missed our hand or are scared by the K on the turn.
After we check and the button checks the turn its hard to believe we don't have the best hand. Now on the river the with a KKKJJ and a (JJJKK board) we're positive we have the hand locked. Why check this? It makes no sense to check as we're only going to get a bet on a chop or a complete bluff. We only make money on the bluff. We probably have the same chance of betting and the button calling believing that we're bluffing and wanting to chop as we do of inducing a bluff. There is also added value that if there is no call we dont show our hand, hiding our play. By betting we gain either a bet or the side advantage of hiding our hand. As the villain I'm almost inclined to push and overbet the pot hoping for a very loose call by someone who believes we're attempting to buy the pot or someone with AA and might think they're ahead.
KK
With KK we're doing the same on the turn as AK. The deck is crippled the only hand that calls a significant bet is the case J or the case K. We have a higher likelihood of making money by checking and hoping for a bet than betting.
On the river, we're golden. We know we're a 100% lock on the hand and hoping we're up against the case J or someone with AA. Again as in the AK scenario we probably have the same probability of making someone call believing we're bluffing as we do of having someone bluffing if we check. Again the added value is that we dont have to show our hand and a bet is probably better than checking and calling with a chance of missing a bet.
Pairs QQ and under.
We hate the K on the turn. The very possible AK holding has now hit. It's the only hand that could have been a dog to our hand and is now a favorite.
There are two perspectives on this:
From the mentality of a slightly weaker player we might check/fold to a bet from the button. In all likelihood however we're only getting called only if we're beaten. It is highly unlikely that anyone will call without having a K or a AA with this board.
(A stronger player might continue to bet this and with a call from the button check down the river... At the very least we have the opportunity to find out where we are in the hand. By checking we have absolutely no idea.)
The River. We're now playing the board. Even if we were ahead of someone who didn't have a K or AA it doesn't matter at this point. Out of position and unsure of where we are since we didn't bet the turn to find out it's almost impossible to bet this river. I'd check hoping for a chop and fold to a large bet.
Obviously there are many more scenarios but these are some likely reasons for the play to develop in this way if I were the middle position raiser.
Back to Daniel's perspective:
The way this hand developed screams of a pair (Not KK) I would have a difficult time believing that someone holding a King could check both the turn and the river hoping to induce a bet or be scared of the case J. We are chopping with all pairs QQ and under, and losing to AA.
In this instance I believe both pushing or checking are way ahead of a bet of $1000. It screams of weakness and I don't think it accomplishes anything. Even from a pure odds perspective you're getting called everytime which will accomplish nothing. Against a really strong player you're going to get raised out of the pot and a weak player will call you. This does nothing for us and cannot possibly be a good move.
I'd also put pushing ahead of checking. We're almost certainly not up against a K or a J. It's hard to fathom someone playing it that way. Pushing gives us the opportunity to take the whole pot if we're splitting and even make AA fold as that board would make it very difficult to call.
An additional aspect of this scenario is the chip stacks left for both players. With 1700 left the MP has enough to stay competitive while he's eliminated if he's up against a K or a J. It would be awfully difficult to make the call given even with an AA holding in this situation.
Aggression wins. I'd almost certainly try and push the person off the hand.
Pushing > Checking >>>>>>> Betting $1000
I think you have to check here. Assuming he could have 7s through As, AK, AQ, KQ for his EP raise, youre betting into a higher boat 1/3 of the time, and I dont think youre going to get a pair of As to fold fearing a K, and of course a K is the nuts.
Your EV with a check is 650.
If you bet 1k you need him to fold more than 75% of the 2/3 of the time he doesnt have you beaten to make the bet worthile. It goes up to 95% folding if you go all in.
After reading responses:
First, I didnt include a J in my calculations, which, from the math guy end makes a check even more appropriate.
From the "playing the player" perspective and assuming he doesnt have the board beat, can he fold more than 75% of the time? It is wrong to assume that because its online that he doesnt know its DN unless its a site he's unknown at.
What is more powerful..fear of being outplayed the whole hand and going out to DN, or the desire to say he crippled DN? I still think he doesnt fold to 1000 bet often enough, but maybe more than I originally thought. If this were a bounty tournament his call would be a no brainer. He puts himself in a position of good chip strength at the same table as DN who is crippled, and makes the bounty a realistic opportunity.
Your EV with a check is 650.
If you bet 1k you need him to fold more than 75% of the 2/3 of the time he doesnt have you beaten to make the bet worthile. It goes up to 95% folding if you go all in.
After reading responses:
First, I didnt include a J in my calculations, which, from the math guy end makes a check even more appropriate.
From the "playing the player" perspective and assuming he doesnt have the board beat, can he fold more than 75% of the time? It is wrong to assume that because its online that he doesnt know its DN unless its a site he's unknown at.
What is more powerful..fear of being outplayed the whole hand and going out to DN, or the desire to say he crippled DN? I still think he doesnt fold to 1000 bet often enough, but maybe more than I originally thought. If this were a bounty tournament his call would be a no brainer. He puts himself in a position of good chip strength at the same table as DN who is crippled, and makes the bounty a realistic opportunity.
isn't this online? How does he know that he is playing DN
QUOTE (No_Neck)
isn't this online? How does he know that he is playing DN
Pros screen names are pretty well known, but I qualified it by saying it might be a site he's not known at. I think DNs is "doublesuited" or something like that?
Ok, let's look at this another way. There are 45 unseen cards at the river,
meaning there are 141 hands out of a possible 1326 holdem starting hands that
beat us:
Final board: JJJKK
Any hand with a J - 45 hands
Any hand with a K (including KK) - 90 hands
AA - 6 hands
That's 10.6% of the time that we're beat (141/1326) if my calcs are right.
Now let's do some EV.
.106*(-1700) =~ -180
Now we need to look at what percentage of the time he needs to FOLD to make
our bet profitable enough to cover the -180 we lose when he has us beat:
x * 975 = 180
x = 180/975 = 18.46%
This means if he folds only 18.46% of the time when we push, we break even
on our bet. If he folds more often than that, we profit from the push and it
is +EV.
Obviously this is opponent dependent, but I'd lay heavy odds that if Daniel
phrased this quiz with the villain going all-in at the river more than 20% of
you would say fold. He's certainly going to fold more than 20% of the time, IMO,
so pushing this at the river is +EV.
Thus, I still submit this is an easy push for the following reasons:
1) You're only beat 10.6% of the time
2) Villain needs to fold only 18% of the time for push to be profitable
3) Villain is not pot committed
4) Villain checked the turn AND river to us, making it significantly less likely he has a hand that beats us
5) We smooth called every street he bet making it appear we slowplayed a monster
when we push
6) We have villain covered
Man I hope I didn't screw any of that up.
Jeff
meaning there are 141 hands out of a possible 1326 holdem starting hands that
beat us:
Final board: JJJKK
Any hand with a J - 45 hands
Any hand with a K (including KK) - 90 hands
AA - 6 hands
That's 10.6% of the time that we're beat (141/1326) if my calcs are right.
Now let's do some EV.
.106*(-1700) =~ -180
Now we need to look at what percentage of the time he needs to FOLD to make
our bet profitable enough to cover the -180 we lose when he has us beat:
x * 975 = 180
x = 180/975 = 18.46%
This means if he folds only 18.46% of the time when we push, we break even
on our bet. If he folds more often than that, we profit from the push and it
is +EV.
Obviously this is opponent dependent, but I'd lay heavy odds that if Daniel
phrased this quiz with the villain going all-in at the river more than 20% of
you would say fold. He's certainly going to fold more than 20% of the time, IMO,
so pushing this at the river is +EV.
Thus, I still submit this is an easy push for the following reasons:
1) You're only beat 10.6% of the time
2) Villain needs to fold only 18% of the time for push to be profitable
3) Villain is not pot committed
4) Villain checked the turn AND river to us, making it significantly less likely he has a hand that beats us
5) We smooth called every street he bet making it appear we slowplayed a monster
when we push
6) We have villain covered
Man I hope I didn't screw any of that up.
Jeff
QUOTE (Sysvr4)
Ok, let's look at this another way. There are 45 unseen cards at the river,
meaning there are 141 hands out of a possible 1326 holdem starting hands that
beat us:
Final board: JJJKK
Any hand with a J - 45 hands
Any hand with a K (including KK) - 90 hands
AA - 6 hands
That's 10.6% of the time that we're beat (141/1326) if my calcs are right.
Now let's do some EV.
.106*(-1700) =~ -180
Now we need to look at what percentage of the time he needs to FOLD to make
our bet profitable enough to cover the -180 we lose when he has us beat:
x * 975 = 180
x = 180/975 = 18.46%
This means if he folds only 18.46% of the time when we push, we break even
on our bet. If he folds more often than that, we profit from the push and it
is +EV.
Obviously this is opponent dependent, but I'd lay heavy odds that if Daniel
phrased this quiz with the villain going all-in at the river more than 20% of
you would say fold. He's certainly going to fold more than 20% of the time, IMO,
so pushing this at the river is +EV.
Thus, I still submit this is an easy push for the following reasons:
1) You're only beat 10.6% of the time
2) Villain needs to fold only 18% of the time for push to be profitable
3) Villain is not pot committed
4) Villain checked the turn AND river to us, making it significantly less likely he has a hand that beats us
5) We smooth called every street he bet making it appear we slowplayed a monster
when we push
6) We have villain covered
Man I hope I didn't screw any of that up.
Jeff
meaning there are 141 hands out of a possible 1326 holdem starting hands that
beat us:
Final board: JJJKK
Any hand with a J - 45 hands
Any hand with a K (including KK) - 90 hands
AA - 6 hands
That's 10.6% of the time that we're beat (141/1326) if my calcs are right.
Now let's do some EV.
.106*(-1700) =~ -180
Now we need to look at what percentage of the time he needs to FOLD to make
our bet profitable enough to cover the -180 we lose when he has us beat:
x * 975 = 180
x = 180/975 = 18.46%
This means if he folds only 18.46% of the time when we push, we break even
on our bet. If he folds more often than that, we profit from the push and it
is +EV.
Obviously this is opponent dependent, but I'd lay heavy odds that if Daniel
phrased this quiz with the villain going all-in at the river more than 20% of
you would say fold. He's certainly going to fold more than 20% of the time, IMO,
so pushing this at the river is +EV.
Thus, I still submit this is an easy push for the following reasons:
1) You're only beat 10.6% of the time
2) Villain needs to fold only 18% of the time for push to be profitable
3) Villain is not pot committed
4) Villain checked the turn AND river to us, making it significantly less likely he has a hand that beats us
5) We smooth called every street he bet making it appear we slowplayed a monster
when we push
6) We have villain covered
Man I hope I didn't screw any of that up.
Jeff
Your calculation assumes that his preflop raise from MP after a limper means nothing and his hand is completely random. Bad assumptions=bad calculations.
Also your calculations dont appear to take into account the half the pot you win when you arent beaten. Even if your assumption of being beaten by random cards about 10% of the time, your betting option needs to return 90% of 975, or around 875.
Using your numbers (r0unded) and the 1000 bet,
.9 x Fold% x (1950)-.1*1000 = 875
or Fold % = 56%.
Make the hands less than random and it gets worse.
Edit: My bad. Canadas post later on makes the math easier, and points out an element missing above. The correct formula is
.9xFold%x1950+.9*(1-Fold%)*975-.1*1000=875 or Fold% = 10%
For the all in bet the breakeven fold % increases to 20%.
QUOTE (copernicus)
Your calculation assumes that his preflop raise from MP after a limper means nothing and his hand is completely random. Bad assumptions=bad calculations
My calculation doesn't assume anything. There is no conditional probability anywhere in it. Can you show otherwise?
Jeff
If this were a deep-stacked, low-blind tournament then I think a check would make more sense. But an extra 1000 chips is too valuable in this situation.
A jack doesn't bet the flop and then check twice. With the villain's low chip stack, he has to value bet the river if he has a king--this would not be the time for a fancy check. Aces would probably be played similarly to a king on the turn and river.
So I think an all-in is in order (I don't think he folds to 1000 and is anyone suggesting we fold to a a re-raise?). He'll call much of the time, but I think he'll fold more than twice as often as he shows a hand that beats you. And even if it's close on that front, 1000 extra chips puts you in a much better position to win the tournament.
A jack doesn't bet the flop and then check twice. With the villain's low chip stack, he has to value bet the river if he has a king--this would not be the time for a fancy check. Aces would probably be played similarly to a king on the turn and river.
So I think an all-in is in order (I don't think he folds to 1000 and is anyone suggesting we fold to a a re-raise?). He'll call much of the time, but I think he'll fold more than twice as often as he shows a hand that beats you. And even if it's close on that front, 1000 extra chips puts you in a much better position to win the tournament.
QUOTE (Sysvr4)
QUOTE (copernicus)
Your calculation assumes that his preflop raise from MP after a limper means nothing and his hand is completely random. Bad assumptions=bad calculations
My calculation doesn't assume anything. There is no conditional probability anywhere in it. Can you show otherwise?
Jeff
Conditional probability? Stop it. Your calculation is based on the 1326 possible remaining starting hands, which is an implicit assumption that all 1326 are equally likely. (not to remention that your calcualtion is wrong even under that assumption)
QUOTE (Book)
If this were a deep-stacked, low-blind tournament then I think a check would make more sense. But an extra 1000 chips is too valuable in this situation.
A jack doesn't bet the flop and then check twice. With the villain's low chip stack, he has to value bet the river if he has a king--this would not be the time for a fancy check. Aces would probably be played similarly to a king on the turn and river.
So I think an all-in is in order (I don't think he folds to 1000 and is anyone suggesting we fold to a a re-raise?). He'll call much of the time, but I think he'll fold more than twice as often as he shows a hand that beats you. And even if it's close on that front, 1000 extra chips puts you in a much better position to win the tournament.
A jack doesn't bet the flop and then check twice. With the villain's low chip stack, he has to value bet the river if he has a king--this would not be the time for a fancy check. Aces would probably be played similarly to a king on the turn and river.
So I think an all-in is in order (I don't think he folds to 1000 and is anyone suggesting we fold to a a re-raise?). He'll call much of the time, but I think he'll fold more than twice as often as he shows a hand that beats you. And even if it's close on that front, 1000 extra chips puts you in a much better position to win the tournament.
How do you know whether its a deep stacked tournament or not? The only clue is that this is level 3, and that far from the money prize equity and hand equity are pretty much the same, and the hand equity here stronly favors a fold.
If your style of play is to gamble even this early in the tournament because it isnt worth your time to try and rebuild from a small stack then by all means call...and that may be DN's situation in this hand. But absent considerations of how much he could be earning if he busts out early (or how much his non-playing leisure time is worth) youre a long way from winning this tournament with or without the extra 1000 chips.
I think he actually said it is level 5 of an online NL tournament, which led to my perhaps-mistaken assumption that it's a Party SNG structure.
And the choices DN is facing are whether to check or push, not call or fold. This is obviously a very, very different decision if you're faced with calling the all-in.
As to the relative worth of 1000 chips--they aren't going to win the tournament for you, but they will give you a much better shot. With the blinds this high for everyone, only an aggressive player is going to win. Opportunities like this need to be seized.
If the villain's got us here, then we're in bad shape. But it really doesn't seem like he's got us...
And the choices DN is facing are whether to check or push, not call or fold. This is obviously a very, very different decision if you're faced with calling the all-in.
As to the relative worth of 1000 chips--they aren't going to win the tournament for you, but they will give you a much better shot. With the blinds this high for everyone, only an aggressive player is going to win. Opportunities like this need to be seized.
If the villain's got us here, then we're in bad shape. But it really doesn't seem like he's got us...
QUOTE (Book)
I think he actually said it is level 5 of an online NL tournament, which led to my perhaps-mistaken assumption that it's a Party SNG structure.
And the choices DN is facing are whether to check or push, not call or fold. This is obviously a very, very different decision if you're faced with calling the all-in.
As to the relative worth of 1000 chips--they aren't going to win the tournament for you, but they will give you a much better shot. With the blinds this high for everyone, only an aggressive player is going to win. Opportunities like this need to be seized.
If the villain's got us here, then we're in bad shape. But it really doesn't seem like he's got us...
And the choices DN is facing are whether to check or push, not call or fold. This is obviously a very, very different decision if you're faced with calling the all-in.
As to the relative worth of 1000 chips--they aren't going to win the tournament for you, but they will give you a much better shot. With the blinds this high for everyone, only an aggressive player is going to win. Opportunities like this need to be seized.
If the villain's got us here, then we're in bad shape. But it really doesn't seem like he's got us...
Got me...twice...but it doesnt change my answer. Level 3, level 5..i saw the blinds and assumed it was level 3. Either way they are far from the money and tcEQ=$EQ, so I still like the check (not fold) vs the push. (again, barring outside earnings and leisure time considerations)
There is almost no chance the villain has a king, AA, or a jack. He will always bet these on thiss river because the way the hand played out Daniel has too call almost any river bet and hope for a split .
Realistically, if Daniel pushes he is freerolling to win an extra 1000. If he only bets 1000 his opponent will almost always call getting 3-1, but unless his opponent has him greatly outchipped Daniel will be putting ultimate pressure on him.
The math of this relates almost directly to Daniel's most recent cardplayer article. if his opponet were to hold any random hand checking would be the ideal action, but because his opponent practically never holds a king, jack or AA, after he has checked the turn and river an all in push is the best option.
Realistically, if Daniel pushes he is freerolling to win an extra 1000. If he only bets 1000 his opponent will almost always call getting 3-1, but unless his opponent has him greatly outchipped Daniel will be putting ultimate pressure on him.
The math of this relates almost directly to Daniel's most recent cardplayer article. if his opponet were to hold any random hand checking would be the ideal action, but because his opponent practically never holds a king, jack or AA, after he has checked the turn and river an all in push is the best option.
I believe after the turn check, the guy would've bet the river if he had a J, K or AA.
Now he checks, so i think its very more likely he doesn't have any of those. If he had any of those, he would've tried to represent he was buying the whole potby making a big bet (going all in); but he didnt'. So I think it's safe to assume he doesn't have any J, K or AA.
Now, if we check we are just giving up half the pot.
And if we try to represent a better hand than the board, the all in play doesn't look like a value bet. I think it's more likely he will call if we go all in, than if we just bet 1000 leaving us just with 1000. If the guy is playing the board he will be risking 1000 to win 975 (half the pot); he is not getting 3 to 1 on his money like another user said before.
So, I would go with the 1000 bet. Its the option with the most fold equity i believe.
2nd Choice: check. I think the all in bet has the same result with the risk of going broke.
Sorry if my english wasn't very good, but I am from Argentina
Now he checks, so i think its very more likely he doesn't have any of those. If he had any of those, he would've tried to represent he was buying the whole potby making a big bet (going all in); but he didnt'. So I think it's safe to assume he doesn't have any J, K or AA.
Now, if we check we are just giving up half the pot.
And if we try to represent a better hand than the board, the all in play doesn't look like a value bet. I think it's more likely he will call if we go all in, than if we just bet 1000 leaving us just with 1000. If the guy is playing the board he will be risking 1000 to win 975 (half the pot); he is not getting 3 to 1 on his money like another user said before.
So, I would go with the 1000 bet. Its the option with the most fold equity i believe.
2nd Choice: check. I think the all in bet has the same result with the risk of going broke.
Sorry if my english wasn't very good, but I am from Argentina
QUOTE (copernicus)
Your calculation is based on the 1326 possible remaining starting hands, which is an implicit assumption that all 1326 are equally likely.
To assume otherwise is to assume the deck was biased when the cards were dealt. Did the deck know the board when dealing the cards?
QUOTE
(not to remention that your calcualtion is wrong even under that assumption)
Please enlighten me then. Perhaps it is wrong, but I'd like to see your calculation of the same rather than just an assertion that it's incorrect.
Jeff
QUOTE
copernicus wrote:
Your calculation is based on the 1326 possible remaining starting hands, which is an implicit assumption that all 1326 are equally likely.
To assume otherwise is to assume the deck was biased when the cards were dealt. Did the deck know the board when dealing the cards?
Your calculation is based on the 1326 possible remaining starting hands, which is an implicit assumption that all 1326 are equally likely.
To assume otherwise is to assume the deck was biased when the cards were dealt. Did the deck know the board when dealing the cards?
The problem here is that while at the time of the deal they were all as likely, given the information from the hand, we can probably rule out 2/3->3/4 of all possible random holdings. Unless we're playing with a maniac, he's just not raising with 37o or 4Js in this situation. This is why the calculations used in this way are relatively useless and then deciding upon an action based upon such calculations flawed.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.